asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, better punctuality and more capacity are both fundamental to the high-quality, high-growth railway that we want to create. Railtrack clearly needs to do more to meet its obligations. We shall look to the new regulator, Tom Winsor, who takes up his post today, to ensure that it does so.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is a matter of satisfaction to many people that the new rail regulator has described himself as determined to ensure that things go better in the future than they have done in the past. Nevertheless, it must be a matter of grave concern to the Government that in this country we are renewing our track about half as quickly as other major European countries; that Alastair Morton, who is the Chairman of the shadow rail authority, has described the investment plans of British Rail as a sham because so much of it is really maintenance money; and, finally, that there is now a wide assumption that the west coast main line upgrade will not make available the extra capacity for slower passenger and freight pathways which were originally promised.

My Lords, in so far as that was a question, Railtrack's position is clearly not up to scratch. It is certainly an issue which the new rail regulator must address. However, it is true that Railtrack has managed to double the level of investment. The jury is still out as to whether that has met the requirements of the operators and the Government, even in the short term. Clearly, we shall have to make a judgment on the totality of Railtrack's proposals in the medium term. We hope that the combination of a sharper rail regulator—I have every confidence in him—and the way in which Railtrack is now involved in improving performance, along with the operators and the Government, will lead to a significant improvement in that performance over a relatively short period of years.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Baroness's Question is extremely appropriate? I travel regularly from Birmingham New Street to Euston. This morning, there was not a train out of Birmingham New Street until eight o'clock because Railtrack is undertaking engineering works at Coventry. By how much is Railtrack subsidised by the Government and how does that compare with pre-privatisation subsidies?

My Lords, Railtrack is not subsidised directly by the Government. Government subsidies are paid to the operators and the operators pay access charges to Railtrack. The question of whether a direct subsidy should be paid to Railtrack will be addressed by the strategic rail authority when it comes into being. As the House will know, the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that he intends very shortly to introduce a railways Bill in another place.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the regulator has the power to fine Railtrack up to 10 per cent of its annual turnover if it fails to deliver? Will he confirm also that, as that money goes to the Treasury, it does not help reinvestment in the railway network? Will he ensure that included in that new railways legislation is a provision that the money is reinvested in the railways?

My Lords, the provision to be able to fine Railtrack up to 10 per cent relates to competition legislation, not all of which is in place. But those regulations will allow the regulator to do as my noble friend says. The question of hypothecation of that revenue will no doubt be a matter for interesting discussion among Ministers. I note the point which my noble friend makes.

My Lords, the railways were nationalised because under private ownership they could not be run at all satisfactorily in the national interest. Bearing that in mind, does my noble friend agree that the new railways legislation to be introduced should include the option of renationalisation if it is demonstrated again that the private sector cannot run the railways?

My Lords, it is our aim to make the current structure of the railways work, difficult though it has proved in view of the structure we inherited and the inadequate regulatory powers. We believe that the combination of an effective regulator and the new powers which we intend to introduce for the strategic rail authority, through the Bill, will give us the power to make that system work.

My Lords, in connection with delays, if a train is recorded as having arrived on time, does that mean it has arrived spot on or is it allowed a few minutes' delay? That seems to happen to my train most mornings.

My Lords, I believe that a delay IA a few minutes is allowed, but I should need to write to the noble Lord to give him a precise Answer. If the operator's performance has been 90-plus per cent, I can assure the noble Lord that the delay will not have been significant. We are looking for that level of performance; but it has yet to be met in all parts of the railway network. That is due in part to the railway operators and in part to the inadequate infrastructure.

My Lords, no man can have two masters. With its involvement in the Tube system, will Railtrack work under two regulatory regimes with conflicting interests? If Railtrack's performance leaves so much to be desired, why involve it in the Tube system?

My Lords, although in many respects Railtrack has poor management and poor project performance, it has much expertise. There are considerable advantages in integrating the overground network with the sub-surface London Tube network. If we succeed in reaching an agreement with Railtrack in relation to that which is not yet delivered, there will be considerable benefits to the travelling public. Railtrack would be operating under a contract to London Underground, whereas the rest of the rail network operates under regulations.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the line from London to Anglesey has improved a great deal? Is he also aware that when I travelled on the nine o'clock train the other day I had a splendid breakfast for nothing?

My Lords, I am so gratified that my noble friend had that experience and that there has been some improvement on that line. I am sure that the House will register its appreciation that he has brought that to our attention.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn wrote to the noble Baroness on 7th June explaining the context and scope of the Home Office consultation on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. A copy of that letter was placed in the Library. The Listening to Women forums, which have been taking place in the last few months, are not relevant to that consultation by the Home Office.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the vast majority of people in the country have no idea that the legislation proposed in the Bill presented to the House and rejected by your Lordships had any effect on young girls of the ages of 16 to 18? Since we last spoke about this subject, I have spoken to many people and I have been unable to find one person who knew that girls were implicated in any way in the provisions of the Bill. Does the Minister agree that it is an absolute duty of any government to alert major institutions—in this case women's organisations—as well as the general public of such a change of great importance? The Government pride themselves on communicative and consultative skills. Will the Minister ensure that there will be a wide-ranging and a country-wide debate before the Labour Government brings forward a similar Bill to promote a way of life that is unnatural, dangerous and physically harmful to girls of that age?

My Lords, I disagree with about three of the premises of the noble Baroness in that extensive question. In answer to her point that all people in the country think one thing or another, the Government have clearly set out consultative arrangements for consulting women's organisations. We have the Women's National Commission. As I mentioned in answer to her first Question, we have been undertaking a series of forums around the country. Twelve regional meetings have been held on the subject. Subsequently, 25,000 postcards have been received by the Women's Unit. On no occasion has that particular issue been raised. I respectfully point out to the noble Baroness that it was made clear in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that there was a distinction between homosexual acts and buggery and that the explicit nature of the distinction between the relationship of gender was made clear in that way.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that while there was evidence of pressure from certain quarters to lower the age for consensual buggery for boys to the age of 16, there was little evidence—perhaps no evidence at all—that there was pressure to reduce the age comparably for girls to 16?

My Lords, I thought I had made it clear in my Answer, but perhaps I was not sufficiently explicit. It was made absolutely clear on the face of the Bill and in the Explanatory Notes that if one seeks to achieve equality before the law on sexual behaviour in this way, that equality will include both genders.

On the other point raised by the noble Lord, he will be well aware, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has reported this on the many occasions that the subject has been debated in your Lordships' House, that a large number of organisations concerned with the sexual health of young people supported this measure.

My Lords, bearing in mind the point that the Minister has made—I understand that she regards this matter as important—can she consider giving a report to the House from time to time on what progress she has made and what assistance she may require from other noble Lords?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion. The Listening to Women forums that we have undertaken are ongoing. My noble friend may be interested to know that the last one is due to take place in Cardiff later this month. I shall be happy to give any reports to the House on the consultative procedures that we undertake.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness reconsider her earlier answers to my noble friend Lady Seccombe? She did not address the issue as to whether or not women's organisations were consulted on this. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, made it perfectly plain in his helpful letter that no women's organisations were consulted. If I understood the Minister correctly—I read the document to which reference was made—women's organisations were not consulted at all. The question is: how will women know that this change in the law is to take place? Most women do not read Hansard or follow the intricacies of legislation.

My Lords, I can only repeat what I said before. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn—as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out—made clear in his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that the part of the Bill on which consultation took place was that part relating to abuse of trust and not to the age of consent. The age of consent was an issue raised under an ECHR obligation on the Government. It was not put to either House of Parliament as an issue of government policy; it was put as a free vote and was therefore considered in that way.

I can only say to the noble Baroness that, as she would expect, I am very much involved through the Women's National Commission and other women's organisations with the opinion of women. In none of those organisations, nor in this sensitive, nationwide consultation which we have just finished, was that issue raised at all.

My Lords, will women's organisations be consulted before any similar Bill is introduced into this House?

My Lords, that will be a question for the Home Office.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this is not so much a matter of women's rights as a matter of public health? Does she agree also that anal sex, whether undertaken heterosexually or homosexually, gives rise to a much higher risk of infection and damage? Also, a young man or boy involved in such a case, if it is heterosexual intercourse, is also at risk. Are not the Government concerned about the health of young men as well as young women?

My Lords, of course. I understand from my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn that the Home Office has been in close consultation with the Department of Health on this subject, as I would expect. The noble Lord and other Members of the House may be interested to know that the last time in which the sexual offences issue was considered formally was by the previous government in 1984. The recommendation produced to Parliament by the Home Secretary of that time was,

"Most of us are of the opinion that girls do not need the protection of criminal law against anal intercourse once they have reached the age of 16".

It has obviously been a consistent position for some time.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, at the initiative of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, a joint government/private sector taskforce has been set up to promote and co-ordinate the UK's response to the reconstruction work arising in Kosovo. All the private sector members of the taskforce are aware that they are on it as representatives of the UK business community generally, not of their own companies.

The taskforce has already met twice and a website at www.dti.gov.uk/ots/kosovo has been established. My colleague, Energy and Industry Minister John Battle, led a group of six businessmen to Kosovo on 28th and 29th June to assess the initial reconstruction opportunities. He hosted a post-visit conference on 1st July so the findings of the business mission could be disseminated more widely to UK companies.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full and helpful Answer. Does he agree that what has to date been an Anglo-American campaign has now changed to what is de facto a European protectorate? One feature of that is that British names are not to the fore as perhaps they were during the campaign. The admirable Dr. Kouchner takes over as the United Nations representative and we are likely to see General Jackson replaced by a German general. In those circumstances, how optimistic is the noble Lord that the criteria and the judgments needed to decide who does what in this massive reconstruction programme and what companies will be involved will give the British a fair crack at the whip?

My Lords, I do not know that it is proper to draw an analogy between those who took part in the air campaign—after all, 19 countries took part in that campaign—and the opportunities for reconstruction work. This country can do what it has been doing; that is, ensuring that British companies are fully informed of the opportunities; that those who are commissioning work—the European Commission set up a reconstruction agency in Pristina to deal with European Union and World Bank aid—are fully aware of what British companies can provide. I do not accept the analogy of the noble Viscount.

My Lords, will HMG be encouraging all British enterprises and the taskforce that the Minister mentioned to co-operate with the relevant Balkan businesses by contracting out locally in the countries that not only were badly affected by the war but were also extremely supportive of the NATO cause? I refer to countries like Macedonia and Bulgaria.

My Lords, the original Question concerned Kosovo and that was the Question I answered. It is well recognised that there will be reconstruction needs and therefore opportunities in other parts of the Balkans, including ultimately in Serbia and Montenegro, though that depends on political decisions which have yet to be taken. But the answer to the noble Baroness is that we aim to take an active part in reconstruction, not only in Kosovo, but also in the other Balkan countries.

My Lords, bearing in mind the international reputation of British civil engineers in bridge building, will my noble friend advise the House that the Government will take all the action they can to ensure that British civil engineering firms win the contracts to rebuild the bridges over the Danube?

My Lords, the civil engineering industry is well represented on the taskforce. The membership of the taskforce was chosen by Nigel Thompson of Ove Arup who is the chairman of the taskforce. It includes a number of civil engineering companies. The priorities for the business mission which took place last week were supply contracts, project and facilities management and consultancy. The most urgent work appears to be in restoring the power and water supply systems.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I understand a French civil/military taskforce reached Kosovo before the formal end of the war? Our own taskforce may therefore need to develop a sense of urgency. Also, can the Minister say something about the involvement of the voluntary sector, particularly given the important part it can play in education in citizenship and building democratic institutions in that country?

My Lords, I do not know that we are competing entirely on dates, but the taskforce to which I referred was set up before the end of the air conflict. The noble Baroness is right that we have to involve the voluntary sector, NGOs and the DfID field office in Pristina, which is particularly concerned with relief for refugees. As regards emergency relief, it is working through NGOs.

I should also have said to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that when it comes to housing, school and civil construction work, it is anticipated that a great deal of the work will be done by local resources.

My Lords, will my noble friend go a little further and say how this essential aid is to be financed? Unless we obtain a comprehensive statement in that regard, we will find ever greater expectations that the European Union budget will pick up the cost and the people who pay for it are the accession countries which we are all seeking to welcome into the European Union.

Yes, my Lords. There will, of course, have to be continuing and ongoing discussions about financing. That is why the reconstruction agency is bringing together the work of the European Union and the World Bank, which is responsible for aid for refugee housing and jobs. It should not be assumed that all of the money will come from the EU budget.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, relations within the Asian community in England are excellent. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary received a delegation of South Asian High Commissioners on 10th June. They praised the Government, the police and the community for their efforts in the wake of the recent bombings. They also reassured the Home Secretary that, whatever difficulties might arise between their own countries, they are determined to ensure that communities here live in peace and harmony.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I should like to say that the Asian community in Britain—that is, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and others—live in great friendship and harmony. They are law-abiding citizens and are very proud of being British and good citizens of this country. Although they may sometimes fail the "Tebbit test" when supporting the cricket teams from their countries of origin, they pass the test of good citizenship. This was evident at the India v Pakistan World Cup Cricket match at Old Trafford and the final contest at Lord's where, despite predictions of disorder, the behaviour of the community was exemplary. Can my noble friend tell me whether Her Majesty's Government have commended this good behaviour?

However, attempts are made by various groups from the sub-continent to export their domestic politics to the south-east Asian community in Britain with, it would appear, the intention of causing unnecessary discord. Can my noble friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government rigorously discourage such action?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I note his support for the cricket teams and their recent activities. I believe that many people were very surprised at the harmonious way that certain teams competed; and, certainly, at the support that was given by various individuals. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister attended a Muslim Council of Britain reception, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary also spoke at a special lunch which it organised last December. Both my right honourable friends attended recent celebrations of the 300th anniversary of the Sikh Khalsa in London and Birmingham. My right honourable friends applauded the vital contributions made by the Moslem and Sikh communities to our multi-cultural nation. They honoured their traditions based on shared values of tolerance, decency and justice.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government will do everything possible to make clear to the media that most Moslems and Hindus in this country—and, for that matter, in the rest of the world—are not extremists or fundamentalists but people who share most of the beliefs of those of us who are Christians? Incidentally, this was confirmed for myself and for some other noble Lords this morning at a memorial service in St. Paul's when a passage from the holy Koran was read.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I agree with what he said. Indeed, I believe that most fair-minded people in Britain would also agree with his remarks. The Government's proposals for new UK-wide counter-terrorist legislation, published in a consultation document on 17th December, proposed a new definition which would enable serious violence by so-called "domestic" terrorist groups to be treated as terrorism. These are areas and aspects that I think we all agree need to be tackled in the future. I am sure that this Government, like any fair-minded government, will wish to tackle these issues and aspects in as positive a fashion as possible.

My Lords, I welcome the Question tabled by the noble, Lord, Lord Paul. Although I agree with much of the sentiment he expressed, I cannot support him on the cricket because I support England. However, is the Minister aware of the concern of the Asian community in this country about the recent events in Kashmir? Is he also aware that ethnic minority newspapers report such news in a substantial manner? Therefore, when debates are held in your Lordships' House would it not be appropriate for him to take this into account and ensure that great care is exercised so as not to destabilise the situation among the Asian community, especially as regards exaggerated claims?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the point he has made. I know how difficult it is for each of us to deal with issues concerning countries abroad, especially the circumstances surrounding Kashmir. This Government have been totally even-handed in their approach. That will be the position that they will pursue in the future.

My Lords, notwithstanding the very good practices of this House, can my noble friend the Minister explain what is being done by the Government to encourage more women, especially Asian women, into playing prominent roles in public life?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her question. I should like to make it clear that young Asian women in Britain today are excelling in education, both at school and at university, and, indeed, in business and in professional life. However, we recognise that it can be hard for maturing Asian women to access the opportunities for a fulfilling career or participation in public life. We would welcome any ideas that my noble friend, or any noble Lords, may have on this particular issue for consideration in the future.

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister comment on what success is being achieved in recruiting more police officers from the Asian community than has been the case in the past? This is clearly an issue which needs desperately to be tackled.

My Lords, as far as concerns this Government, attracting able young people from ethnic minorities into public services is a priority. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is setting targets for the Home Office and all its services to ensure that they visibly represent the communities that they serve. Some of the services, like the police and the Prison Service, are predominantly white, male institutions. So we are keen to see more women entering the service; and, indeed, more people from the ethnic groups. I believe that, only today, the Home Secretary issued a statement on this issue.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.15 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendments Nos. 283A and 283B:

Page 100, line 32, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

("(c) any person who has entered into arrangements falling within section 172(2)(6) above.").

Page 100, line 36, leave out from ("to") to ("in") in line 37 and insert ("answer any question or produce any document which he would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce").

moved Amendment No. 283C:

Page 102, line 1, at end insert—

(""PPP arbiter" shall be construed in accordance with section 181(1) above;").

moved Amendment No. 284:

Before Clause 193, insert the following new clause—

(" . No agreement made under section 193 shall reduce provisions for concessionary fares that exist on the day before this Act comes into force.").

I shall speak briefly to my Amendment No. 285 which is in the group we are discussing. In our view the way the Bill is drafted leaves open to doubt whether the travel concessionary scheme would continue as at present. Clause 193(1) states that any local authority "may enter into arrangements". Our amendment obliges Transport for London to make arrangements with the London authorities,

"within six months of the establishment of Transport for London".

The amendment provides that these popular travel concessions which are so valuable for a number of groups, including the old, the blind and the disabled should continue on a compulsory basis. I support my noble friend's amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord who have spoken for agreeing to group their amendments with the Government's amendments as it is sensible to have an overall debate on the future of the concessionary scheme. The Government's amendments should clarify the position.

This Bill essentially provides for continuation of powers which have been in existence since 1984, which may be the period mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. The amendments that the Government are bringing forward essentially update and improve the operation of the current arrangements to the benefit of both users and local authorities. They bring the times of operation of the free travel scheme into line with the times of the scheme that the local authorities currently agree voluntarily. They clarify the costs of the free travel scheme and they give the local authorities powers to set up a statutory joint committee to take decisions on concessionary fares on the basis of qualified majority voting. These amendments have been drafted in accordance with the principle that at the end of the day concessionary fares are a matter for local discretion.

Government Amendments Nos. 286A and 286B are purely technical in nature. Amendment No. 286B relates to penalty fares but is being taken here because it is similar in effect to Amendment No. 286A. Amendment No. 286A ensures that it will be possible for the London local authorities to offer travel concessions on services provided under an agreement with London Transport under statutory powers contained in the London Regional Transport Act 1984, after the relevant sections of that Act are repealed. Amendment No. 287B ensures that the penalty fares schemes currently in operation by the Docklands Light Railway under that franchise will be able to continue. This is already the case for LT services.

Amendment No. 286AA is more substantial. It gives the London local authorities the option of exercising their power under Clause 193 to enter into concessionary travel arrangements with TfL and train operators through a joint committee to which special provisions apply. Decisions of the joint committee would have to be unanimous, unless the authorities themselves had already unanimously decided that all decisions or decisions on particular matters could be taken by a specified majority of the members. The majority so specified could not be less than two-thirds.

These powers, if the London authorities choose to make use of them, could make their decision-making on concessionary fares much more secure. They avoid the risk, inherent in a process which requires the unanimous agreement of all 33 local authorities at every stage, that travel concessions for London's elderly and disabled residents cannot be agreed because one local authority fails to signal its agreement in time. The powers in this amendment will be available to the London local authorities only if 'hey choose to use them. It would not in my submission be right for the Government to seek to impose the joint committee arrangements on the London local authorities.

Amendments Nos. 286B, 286C and 286D change the times of operation of the statutory reserve scheme, bringing them into line with those currently in the voluntary scheme. In the event of the London local authorities failing to agree a satisfactory scheme, TfL will be obliged to put a scheme in place which will provide free travel concessions on all services under its control. TfL would recover the cost of the free travel scheme from the London local authorities. The statutory reserve scheme has never been activated but its presence has always been a reassurance to London's elderly and disabled residents that the travel concessions they rely on will not be taken away. These amendments will reassure users of the scheme that if the free travel scheme is ever activated they will be able to use their travel permits at the same time as they currently do.

Amendments Nos. 286E and 286F require TfL to take into account the costs of travel concessions in previous years when calculating how much the boroughs would pay for the free travel scheme. TfL is also required to take into account fare changes and changes in the information available to it for calculating the costs. In the event of the London local authorities failing to agree a satisfactory scheme, TfL will be obliged to put a scheme in place which will provide free travel concessions on all services under its control. TfL would then recover the cost of the free travel scheme from the London local authorities. I hope that explains the slightly complex, interlocking government amendments.

Perhaps I may now make a few points on the other amendments before us. Amendment No. 284, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, seeks to impose a particular level of concessionary fares provision on the local authorities. The local authorities in London currently choose to fund free travel concessions for their eligible residents on London Transport services, Docklands Light Railway and the railway services. They have provided such concessions for many years and I have no reason to believe that any of the boroughs have plans to change that. Nevertheless, to follow completely the noble Baroness's amendment would mean the Government seeking to interfere with the local boroughs' discretion by prescribing the concessions that they must provide. It is right that the boroughs themselves should make such decisions and be accountable for them. The Government believe that that should remain the position, while recognising the powers that we propose to bring forward in our amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, indicated that the main point of Amendment No. 285 was to require boroughs to enter into agreement rather than that they "may" enter into agreement. The drafting of the Bill follows that of the 1984 Act, which is the basis of the present scheme. That Act also said "may". At the end of the day, for reasons similar to those I have set out, it is for the boroughs to agree the scheme. If the boroughs do not agree, then the reserve scheme comes into play; that will still guarantee concessionary travel. However, in the first instance, it should be a permissive power for the boroughs themselves, hopefully, to agree a scheme. Bearing in mind those reserve powers, I do not think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon— which seeks to turn "may" into "must"—is appropriate. I would therefore ask the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to withdraw their amendments.

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, tells us what she proposes to do with her amendment, perhaps I may welcome some of the government amendments, in particular the change of period in Schedule 12 from what it was to, in effect, 9 a.m. until 4.30 the following morning. That satisfies many concerns about the concessionary schemes. After all, quite a lot of people will be able to use them go to work; previously it was difficult for them to go to work at all on a concessionary ticket.

We also welcome Amendment No. 286AA and the arrangements for the joint working of the London authorities in relation to the setting up of the schemes. The reserve scheme will be at least as good as the existing scheme and not, as it has been in the past, slightly less good. One can unreservedly welcome the government amendments.

The noble Lord asked me whether I would withdraw my amendment; I have not yet moved it. However, I am grateful to him for his explanation. I shall read what he said, but I think I am satisfied that my amendment is not necessary at this stage. I join with the noble Baroness in welcoming the government amendments.

I am delighted by the Minister's explanation. My one objection to Schedule 12 concerned the hours set out there because the fallback scheme was just not good enough. The amendments have changed the fallback scheme and have answered our concern. This carries on the marvellous work done by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, many years ago. I am delighted that it is no longer necessary to move my amendment. It is appropriate that the boroughs should take the first decision and that the matter should be in their control. However, the fallback scheme is very important in case some of the boroughs fail to meet what we hope they will achieve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 286:

We support the amendment. Amendment No. 286ZA seeks to do the same thing in a slightly different way. I accept that the consultation element may well be desirable. At present I think it is more important to press the principle involved. In our last debate in Committee a number of issues affecting people with mobility disabilities of one kind or another were raised. At that time, the question was raised—I cannot remember by whom—of how one determines who is disabled and who is not. These amendments attempt to answer that question. Perhaps the Government can say how that question is answered in the legislation before us. It is obviously important that the determination of who is to receive concessionary travel is perceived to be fair, both by people who have disabilities and impairments of one kind or another and by others. I do not need to bore your Lordships with the whole question of special tags for cars and how irritating that can be. That was also mentioned during the course of our debates in Committee. Can the Minister say how the question of defining criteria is resolved at the present time and in the Bill?

I welcome this further opportunity to debate the problems and needs of disabled people with severe mobility handicaps. In doing so, I am again most grateful to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for having tabled his amendment in close rapport with Greater London Action on Disability of which, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I am, like the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, a patron. I am most grateful also to her for moving Amendment No. 286. As she said, its purpose is to reduce the wide variation that now exists in the criteria that different London boroughs use to determine eligibility for the disabled person's freedom pass.

For my part, I do not believe that a disabled person's eligibility for a freedom pass should depend on which borough he or she happens to live in. I believe that boroughs should frame their local eligibility criteria for the pass in the light of guidance issued by the joint authority running the scheme London-wide.

I believe also that organisations for disabled and older people should be consulted in the preparation of the guidance. I do so on the basis of the recent experience of organisations of and for disabled people of contacting 18 London boroughs and asking for the criteria they operate when determining eligibility for the disabled person's freedom pass. A number were unco-operative. The City of London Corporation required prior permission from the Lord Mayor's office.

Amendment No 286 is important to disabled people and their organisations. I know that my noble friend the Minister will want to reply to it as helpfully as he can. Meanwhile I am most grateful to him for his letter to me of 5th July, which I received by hand during this debate, about the amendments I moved earlier in Committee on exempting disabled people from road user and workplace parking charges. My noble friend informs me:

"The Government will endeavour to agree the structure of concessionary arrangements for disabled persons in local authority schemes in time for them to be included in the GLA Bill at Lords Report".

That is a most welcome response to my amendments. When I moved them, I said that I knew my noble friend's reply would be a positive one. He has been as good as his word in promising carefully to consider the case I argued and I am sure that Members in all parts of the Committee who have taken part in our debates on the problems and needs of disabled Londoners will honour him for his reply.

I am deeply grateful for my noble friend's response. I had not realised that my letter had reached him. I am glad that it has done so in time for this debate, although the issue to which it refers will arise later in the proceedings. My response indicates that the Government are trying throughout the Bill to meet the concerns of disabled people.

My noble friend may not be so positive about my response to Amendment No. 286. As I indicated on the last group, the principle, at least in the first instance, should be that discretionary affairs are a matter for local discretion. The section of the Bill dealing with disabled persons' permits is drawn from previous legislation, which says that they should be issued to people who suffer from a disability or injury that, in the opinion of the local authority, seriously impairs their ability to walk. Although that definition is fairly broad, its intention is clear.

I regret that my noble friend encountered some difficulty in getting information from particular local authorities. Nevertheless, we believe that local authorities themselves should decide whether they need to draw up further criteria for issuing permits to disabled people or rely on the definition in the Bill. Regardless or whether or not they have such criteria, if a London borough refuses to issue a pass to those considering themselves eligible under the Bill, the borough would be open to legal challenge over its decision. Anyone who felt they had been treated unfairly would have recourse to the local government ombudsman.

As to whether such criteria should be made public, both existing and planned legislation cover that area. The present access to information rights in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 mean that all papers put to a council are open to the public. Under our new proposals in the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill, such papers will continue to be made available. In addition, if decisions are taken at an official level, those decisions, together with the reasons for them, must also be made public. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and others who support the amendment to consider whether current and planned legislation providing rights of access deals with the issue of publication. The Government are bringing forward an amendment that would give boroughs the power to establish a joint committee to take decisions on the arrangements for concessionary fares. I quickly look around to make sure that my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon is not in his place. Those decisions would be on the basis of qualified majority voting, which is an issue on which he jumps up in a different context. That also reflects our commitment to subsidiarity and the hope that boroughs will act jointly. Then there is the reserve scheme we debated earlier. If the London boroughs decide that the criteria for issuing disabled persons' permits ought to be drawn up and published, they could use the joint committee to do so.

Although I have some sympathy with the experience of my noble friend Lord Morris and others who tabled the amendment, I cannot agree that it is the appropriate vehicle for achieving their objectives. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, to withdraw the amendment.

I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, wishes to come back on her amendment before I withdraw mine.

It is kind of the noble Baroness to give me that opportunity. The best that one can do is to read carefully the Minister's long answer to make sure that it satisfies the points raised. That is what I propose to do.

I thank all who have spoken and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for her points and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for his comment about subsection (5B) and publicity. I am grateful also for what he told us about the Minister's letter to him, which we will come to later. I am deeply appreciative of that response and cheered by it.

I am reasonably cheered by the Minister's response on subsection (5B). He has he set my mind at rest. I shall be happy to read his comments on subsection (5A). I think I probably am satisfied.

Given the myriad of amendments about disabled people and transport, the wide range of fears and concerns that have been expressed, and the importance of getting it right, would the Minister be willing to meet the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and our advisers between now and Report, to discuss all those matters?

I would be most happy to proceed with such an arrangement.

I thank the Minister very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 286A:

Page 104, line 21, after ("233") insert ("or 324").

moved Amendments Nos. 286B to 286F:

Page 228, line 21, leave out ("the daytime, evening or late-night") and insert ("an eligible").

Page 228, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert ("the eligible periods are—

(a) the period from midnight to 4.30 a.m.; and

(b) the period from 9.00 a.m. to midnight.").

Page 228, line 27, leave out ("daytime, evening or late-night period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)") and insert ("periods which are eligible periods for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b)").

moved Amendment No. 286AA:

After Clause 196, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 287:

After Clause 196, insert the following new clause—

The principle is there, and it is reflected within the Bill. If a transitional problem of the sort alluded to by the noble Baroness arises, I am confident that the powers cover that. However, to make doubly sure, perhaps I may undertake to write to the noble Baroness.

I thank the Minister for that reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 287B:

Page 232, line 20, after (" 233") insert ("or 324").

moved Amendment No. 288:

Page 233, line 51, leave out ("the Secretary of State and").

This provision does not give the Secretary of State powers, but the reason why there is a requirement to consult is so that there can be consistency about penalty fare levels on all relevant modes of transport. That is particularly the case where a number of stations are served both by London Transport and by the operating companies. At those stations there could be some confusion were the two forms of penalty charge to be completely out of line with each other. At the end of the day, the decision lies with the mayor, but the mayor needs to take that into account, and therefore needs to consult the Secretary of State on those matters.

Given that explanation, although I am not entirely happy that it is necessary to consult the Secretary of State, it is not an important enough point to pursue to the end. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 288A:

Page 234, line 18, at end insert—

I am happy to support the noble Earl's amendment. He has pursued the matter by most methods open to a Member of this House and, as a result, has received interesting answers from government Ministers. It is obvious that one point we must deal with on penalty fares is the way in which the fare and penalty fare structures operate. However, an equally important element that we are dealing with at present is appeals. The current system of appeals laid down in the Bill is not satisfactory. I support the noble Earl's amendment and look forward to hearing what the Government have to say on the issue.

As mentioned, I achieved this legislation in 1992 when I took it through as a Private Member's Bill for London Transport. At that time there was a desperate need to try to make up some of the vast amount of lost revenue. Sadly, the revenue is still being lost and, if I am to believe the Evening Standard, there is an even greater loss now than years ago.

It is important for us to maintain a tough but fair stance on penalty fares. All those who legitimately pay their fares do so at a higher cost because of the great loss being carried. The time has gone when people used to pocket the excess fares when the passenger arrived at the end of the journey. That used to be a great fraud in the past. People used to set up arrangements to close the ticket office at one station in order for their friend to collect all the money at the next, then they would share it later. That was well known at the time. However, all that is a thing of the past.

Now the remaining issue is the appeals system. As a general principle, it is not right in any field and it does not accord with our sense of justice that people should have the right to be both judge and jury in any situation. For that reason I support the noble Earl's amendment.

I also support the noble Earl. Many Members of the Committee may have read the case of the nun who fell asleep on a bus. They took her through the courts. Cannot common sense be applied'? Does the Minister realise that we all remember the advertisements saying: "If you are caught not paying your fare. you are a criminal"? That is how the lady felt when she was dragged through the courts. Admittedly, she got off in the end, as is being whispered on the Front Bench., but the matter still got into the press and was unpleasant.

Will the Minister consider all that has been said? I agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that when fares are not paid there must be a system for collecting them. It cannot be fair that those who are willing to pay should pay higher fares because the company does not receive the full income. Of course I understand that. But also, as the noble Baroness said, it is not right to have a judge and jury situation. I hope the Minister will consider the matter.

I, too, hope the Government will consider the amendments. As I understand it, and as the noble Earl explained, this is not about penalty fares but appeals against penalty fares. There is no mechanism for them at the moment, other than an internal one operated by London Transport.

My noble friend Lord Archer pre-empted my criticism of the actions of London Buses the other day, widely reported in the press, in pursuing the most ridiculous claim against the nun who happened to fall asleep. I am glad that the magistrates dealt with it in the best way they could. Nevertheless, it caused the victim of the incident a good deal of disquiet. No doubt it also cost the fare-paying passengers of London Transport a good deal of money to pursue the exercise through the courts. It seemed to me completely unnecessary.

When the noble Earl last raised the issue at Question Time, I said that one of the best solutions would be to introduce more automatic ticket barriers at outlying stations. I reported that at the station I use in Zone 2 the barriers had been put in but were not yet in operation, owing to a lack of power at the station, according to London Transport. I cannot remember how long ago the Question was—at least a month—and I have to report that the barriers are still not in operation. I do not know whether there is a problem with the electricity in Fulham; I have not found one at home, where it seems to work well for me, but obviously it does not at Putney Bridge station.

I digress from the purpose of the amendment and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says on the subject of appeals.

The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said that in the case of the nun who fell asleep on the bus the magistrates dealt with the matter in the best way they could. That described it precisely. As I understand it, the nun was not found not guilty, but was given a conditional discharge. That goes to the heart of the complaints made by Members of the Committee about the criminalisation of something which should not be treated as a criminal matter. If I were taken to the magistrates' court on whatever charge and received a conditional discharge, I would leave the court feeling very unhappy.

As I understand the penalty fare system, certainly the one I introduced, there is no criminal charge involved. The nun must have been charged under some other process; perhaps fraud. It is one of the important features of the legislation that when you are asked to pay a penalty fare no criminal liability or criminal record is involved.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for both her earlier intervention explaining why we introduced the penalty fare system in the first place and for the clarification of the position. The nun in the case was prosecuted for travelling with intent to avoid payment. I am not clear why she was not able to pay a penalty fare, but we are making further inquiries in that regard.

I believe the nun tried to pay the penalty fare.

We are trying to establish the exact circumstances and why she was not permitted to pay the penalty fare. The noble Baroness is correct that the penalty fare system was introduced to avoid criminality and taking people through the courts. It was to provide a penalty fare, irrespective of proof of intent. Nevertheless, it was free from the label of criminality.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said, there is a problem of fare evasion on the London Underground. Some of it will be dealt with when the whole network has been gated under the prestige project. I am not sure why the gates at Putney Bridge do not currently work, but no doubt when the full system is in operation they will. We hope that that will restrict evasion in the sense of intent to travel without a ticket. But there will still be people who travel beyond the duration of the ticket, for whom the penalty fare should apply.

The current legislation does not formally recognise the concept of an appeal. The appeal process was well established by London Transport, at the request of the previous government, at the time the penalty scheme was introduced. We are aware of the concerns of the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee in this matter. The Government have asked London Transport and the London Regional Passengers' Committee to review the whole system of penalty fares. A draft report has been produced and has, we hope, already led to some improvements in the operation of the scheme by London Transport. The final version has not yet been produced, and I must ask the Committee for a further period of patience before we see the final recommendations. The draft form is currently being considered by my colleague Glenda Jackson.

The amendment would compel the mayor to establish an independent appeals body without having the opportunity to assess the merits of that body in that situation. For example, the mayor may instead conclude that the administration of penalty fares can best be improved by other means. The review has already resulted in a much closer convergence of approach between the London Transport system and that which applies to the national rail network.

Changes arising from the penalty fares review are already being phased in by London Transport. I believe that London Transport should be given a little time to demonstrate that it can operate the scheme more effectively, including the appeals dimension thereof. I recognise the concerns of the Committee, but I believe that it is better to deal with the issue in that context rather than by way of an amendment to the Bill.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, suggested that there should be more ticket barriers. I do not believe that we should await technology in order to have a fair and sensitive penalty system in operation right now. I am disappointed that the Minister does not immediately see the merits of this amendment and accept it straight away. I await with interest the recommendations relating to penalty fares. I shall certainly return to this matter at Report stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 288B:

Page 106, line 37, after ("use") insert ("public").

Reading the Explanatory Notes on the Bill, the whole point of this arrangement is that the new Transport Users' Committee will not try to sort out the problem but refer it to whoever has that ability. With great respect to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench who are working so hard on this Bill, I do not believe that it is any good to go on about integrated transport and then to say that they do not want to integrate the public transport system with the private one. If cars are parked in a road where a bus stop is required, that issue must be sorted out. Surely, a complaint can be made to the committee, which will then refer it to whoever can deal with it. The committee is more a channel of communication than a body to sort out problems, unless I am mistaken.

I rise to support Amendment No. 288A and speak also to Amendment No. 294A, which I believe the Government Front Bench has agreed can be debated at this stage. Like Amendment No. 288A, Amendment No. 294A seeks to ensure that a statutory watchdog is in existence to deal only with issues of public passenger transport. I speak simply as a regular user of public transport in London who is very worried that in dealing also with private transport the new Transport Users' Committee will have the effect of diluting, or even eliminating entirely, the voice of the public passenger, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already pointed out. Clearly, that would be disastrous. The private passenger, unlike the public one, already has powerful lobbying organisations to turn to: the AA, the British Road Federation and so on. There is also the possibility of conflicts of interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has referred to the classic issue of whether a bus stop or private parking space should be provided outside a resident' house. It should not be up to a statutory watchdog to resolve differences between these two interests.

This amendment also has the strong support of the National Consumer Council and the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee. One wonders whether the Government are falling between two stools. On the one hand, they appear to promote public transport; on the other, they are clearly very keen to develop overall strategies. But the assembly will be the executive and should make such decisions based on the evidence and advice given to it. from wherever they come. Have the Government properly thought out the effect that combining the two interests of public and private transport would have on the new body?

The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would prescribe the factors to be taken into account when drawing up membership of the London Transport Users' Committee. Clause 199 indicates to the assembly what factors to take into account in selecting members of the committee. However, it is not an exhaustive list of criteria.

Amendment No. 288B proposes that the assembly takes into account the users of public passenger transport facilities rather than simply passenger transport. Even having listened to the noble Baroness, I am not sure why she would wish to append the word "public", given that the committee will have to consider representations from a wide range of transport users and the assembly would be expected to select the membership of the committee so as to reflect the full diversity of experience. I therefore hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 294A also reflects a misunderstanding of the Government's proposals for the London Transport Users' Committee, or a difference of opinion on them. The committee is intended to be a new body, drawing on the strengths of the London Regional Passengers' Committee, but doing so within a new context of London governance and with a wider remit.

Transport provision in London will be largely concentrated in a single integrated body—TfL—which must have due regard to the mix of demands represented by transport users. We believe that the new LTUC remit should reflect that integration and represent transport users who will be affected by the full range of TfL activities. LTUC will inevitably consider more representations about public transport because its highways functions are primarily connected with only 5 per cent of the road network in London.

As the Minister for Transport in London explained in the other place, while the LTUC will be capable of considering complaints from all transport modes, it will still represent passengers. We do not accept that a valuable voice will be weakened.

When considering complaints about GLA roads, the committee will be under a duty to consider the interests of all those who use the road, not just car users. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate that the committee should give particular attention to complaints from motorists rather than those travelling on public transport.

Perhaps I could remind the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and other noble Lords who spoke, that LTUC will not be a decision-making body. It will not itself be able to resolve a dispute about the use of a particular road. It can only recommend a course of action to TfL, and the mayor and the assembly will also see the advice. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Before the noble Lords whose amendments we are considering speak, I wish to make a intervention. There is a profound difference of opinion between those who have moved the amendments and the Government who have written these clauses into the Bill. The difference of opinion is about exactly who the new passenger representative body should represent. Our contention is that they should represent the interests of, and speak up for, public transport users.

A curious suggestion seems to have arisen from this debate that somehow that unelected body, which has been appointed and not elected and which does not directly represent anybody, should take extremely important decisions about the balance of interests between one sort of transport and another and make a recommendation to TfL as to the decision it should take. Our contention is that it is precisely that sort of decision—such as where the balance should be struck—that should be taken by those people who act for, on behalf of or as part of the new GLA, and not taken on behalf of people who use transport.

There are several powerful bodies which represent the interests of freight on rail, cyclists, and especially those who travel in cars, so it seems to us to be more sensible to leave those bodies to continue to represent the interests of passengers in non-public forms of transport direct to TfL. That would leave the new body the task of representing direct to TfL the interests of those who travel by public transport. It would then be up to TfL to resolve any difficulties, ultimately backed by the power of the authority.

It is perhaps necessary for us to bring forward amendments to clarify the structure. The LTUC will be appointed by the assembly and we will bring forward amendments to allow the assembly to issue guidance and directions to LTUC. It may be that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, will then feel able to accept that point.

Does the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, wish to say anything before I deal with my amendment?

I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. I agree very much with what the noble Baronesss, Lady Thomas and Lady Hamwee, have said. The question still remains: what will happen to the smaller voice of the public passenger? What structure will allow that voice to be heard?

I am interested to have heard the Minister's comments and look forward to seeing government amendments. As the Minister will appreciate, and as my noble friend Lady Thomas made clear, there is a clear difference between us as to the appropriate remit of the new body. The appointments will be made by the new assembly and, no doubt, in making the appointments the members of the assembly will have the needs of an integrated transport system for London in mind, especially the strategic nature of the whole job. I must make it clear again—and I am sorry that it was not clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour—that we are not suggesting in any way that London's public and other forms of transport should not be integrated. That is as far from the case as it could possibly be.

I am puzzled by the wording of Clause 199(3). I read it again during this discussion and it states that the assembly is to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that members of the committee between them represent the interests of those who use passenger transport facilities and services in greater London. I suspect that, as drafted, that means everybody who does not stay at home all day every day. The Government may understand why, having read that clause, we felt that it was necessary to try to pin the description down a little more. However, we shall return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that questions and comments from Back-Benchers on the Statement should be brief because the time is limited to 20 minutes and taking longer can use time available to other noble Lords.

My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

"With your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week's talks on Northern Ireland. Last Friday, I proposed a way forward for Northern Ireland.

"The starting point was the Good Friday agreement, which set out an agreed basis for a peace settlement in Northern Ireland. It offered the unionists what they have sought for the last 70 years: the principle of consent; no change to the status of Northern Ireland without the agreement of the majority of its population; changes to the Irish constitution, with Dublin dropping its legal claim to the North; and devolution of powers to Northern Ireland, with an elected assembly, an executive and other institutions. The Good Friday agreement offers the Nationalists and Republicans equality, justice, and the normalisation of Northern Ireland society; for the first time since partition, the ability to share power and responsibility and not have their electoral mandate set to nought; a range of new institutions, including North-South bodies; and over time, as the security situation improves, demilitarisation.

"Above all, the Good Friday agreement offered all the people of Northern Ireland the prospects of permanent peace and an end to violence. It is the only true way forward for Northern Ireland.

"Of course, difficulties remain. There is still violence, much of it by loyalists opposed to the Good Friday agreement. There is still conflict and bitterness, as we can see in Portadown, where I will continue to work for a settlement of the Drumcree issue.

"But life in Northern Ireland has improved immeasurably since the Good Friday agreement. Normality has returned to most parts of the Province. Whatever their disagreements, the two sides now talk to one another regularly. But one vital issue is unresolved: how to secure the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. The Good Friday agreement required all parties to use their best endeavours to secure decommissioning.

"On 25th June, the Taoiseach and I secured the commitment of all the parties which signed the Good Friday agreement to three principles on which the rest of our work was then based. First, an inclusive executive should be formed exercising devolved powers. Secondly, all paramilitary arms should be decommissioned by May 2000. Thirdly, decommissioning should be carried out in a manner determined by the International Commission on Decommissioning under General John de Chastelain.

"Both sides need certainty. Unionists want certainty that decommissioning will happen, and a guarantee that, if it does not, they will not be left in an executive with those who refuse to do so.

"Republicans want the certainty that Unionists are serious about participating in a genuinely inclusive government. Our agreement last Friday provides both. In more detail, our proposal is as follows. Northern Ireland Ministers would be nominated by the parties, using the d'Hondt procedure, on 15th July. The devolution order would be laid before Parliament on the following day, and powers transferred on 18th July.

"The de Chastelain commission would require a start to the process of decommissioning. The general has already said that he expects this to be within `literally a couple of days'.

"The 'process of decommissioning' begins when a paramilitary group,

'makes an unambiguous commitment that decommissioning will be completed by 22nd May 2000 and commences detailed discussions of actual modalities (amounts, types, location, timing) with the Commission through an authorised representative'.

"So there would have to be a definitive statement of intent, certified by de Chastelain literally within days. If it does not happen and de Chastelain certifies a breach of this process, then at that point the executive is unwound. So we will know within days whether the decommissioning is to happen or not.

"The commission then sets a further time limit, within which there is to be a start to actual decommissioning of weapons. The general has said that he would expect this to be within a few weeks. Again, should the actual decommissioning not come as de Chastelain has laid down according to the Good Friday agreement, then again the failsafe kicks in. De Chastelain is due to make reports on progress on actual decommissioning in September, December and May 2000, by which time it is to be complete.

"This is all entirely in line with the Good Friday agreement. Under it, parties are expected to use their best efforts to secure decommissioning. Last Friday's agreement is the basis for how that will be judged.

"Should default occur, the institutions are suspended automatically while we find a way forward. We are all then, in effect, back to where we are now, but with these two vital differences. The blame for default I s clear, and the parties are then free to move on in an executive without the defaulting party.

"I cannot make the other parties agree to a new executive. I cannot force anyone to sit in a government with anyone else. But I can make sure that Sinn Fein does not continue in an executive with the UUP should there be a default of the de Chastelain process. All this will be set out in legislation.

"It is a far better deal than was on offer at Hillsborough. That offered a token act of decommissioning, dependent on reciprocal steps by the British and Irish with no clear framework for completing the process by May 2000. This provides a guarantee of a complete process of decommissioning, plus a failsafe that protects fully the interests of the Unionists.

"So there is a challenge here to all parties: to Unionists to agree to a power sharing executive; to Republicans not just to give up violence, but to decommission weapons in accordance with the undertakings of the Good Friday agreement; to nationalist opinion to support parties implementing this agreement and not support those who refuse to do so.

"If last Friday's agreement is put through, we will know in days whether the paramilitaries are serious about decommissioning their weapons. After 30 years of bloodshed, grief-stricken families, terror-torn communities, is it not worth waiting 30 days to see if the undertakings made here are fulfilled? If they are, then peace will come—real peace. If they are not, then we will know that the challenge of true democracy was too much for those linked to paramilitary groups. Either way, we will know. So I say to people: discuss the detail. Debate it. Engage. But do not throw away the best chance for peace we will have this generation".

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement in the way that she has. The whole House, I am sure, will understand the difficulties of this process and appreciate the efforts of all those who are negotiating in good faith to find a way forward.

It is, of course, some years since this process was begun by my right honourable friend Mr Major. We in the Conservative Party have supported the process all along. We continue to give full support to the Good Friday agreement. We are committed to making it work and seeing it implemented in full. I am sure that the Government will agree with me when I say that an essential part of the process is the decommissioning of all illegally held arms and explosives. So far it has not yet happened. I should have thought that parties genuinely committed to peace do not need weapons in their armoury.

Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree with me that in matters such as this it is therefore essential to proceed with caution and with remorseless attention to detail? Does she agree that it is not appropriate to apply all the pressure on Mr Trimble? The democratic parties have already done all that was required under the agreement; and the Unionist leader has made the historic statement that he is prepared to sit with the political representatives of terrorist organisations provided those organisations show a genuine intent to disarm. Is the noble Baroness concerned that although the process of decommissioning is supposed to be completed within 10 months it is still to begin? The Government are asking the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to take on trust claims by Sinn Fein—which does not, the House will remember, even profess to speak for the IRA—and by other political parties linked to paramilitaries that once they are in the executive, disarmament will begin.

It is for that reason that we have two main areas of concern. The first relates to the question of a guarantee. Is it the case that there is still no cast-iron guarantee that the IRA will decommission illegal weapons, although the Prime Minister has said that that will happen? Can the noble Baroness give the House more details about how soon decommissioning must start after the formation of an executive that includes Sinn Fein? Does she agree that, if the House is to be able to debate this proposal meaningfully—and I think that it should—we may need a more precise and transparent timetable from General de Chastelain on which to form such a judgment?

On a fail-safe guarantee, Friday's document said that, without decommissioning, the Government would:

"suspend the operations of the institutions set up by the Agreement".

Does the noble Baroness agree that that would penalise democratic politicians for the intransigence of terrorists—and, incidentally, give paramilitary organisations leverage over the continuance of the executive? Yet today the Prime Minister said that if the IRA does not express a willingness to decommission,

"it is open to us all to formulate a new way forward without Sinn Fein".

The key question that arises is: what do the Government mean? Do they mean an executive only with Sinn Fein or an executive without Sinn Fein if need be—because it cannot be both?

Will the noble Baroness also confirm what appeared to be the meaning of the Prime Minister's words this morning—namely, that without decommissioning he would seek the suspension of Sinn Fein or any other defaulting organisation from the Assembly and invite the Assembly to choose a new executive? Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm that, without decommissioning, the Government would not hesitate to stop the early release of terrorist prisoners onto our streets?

The Government have said that they will ask us for assistance with emergency legislation. On behalf of these Benches, I would like to say that we will work with the Government to provide a speedy approval for that legislation. First, is the noble Baroness in a position to tell us whether it will be primary or secondary legislation? Secondly—I say this in the knowledge that we have a great deal of business to complete before the Summer Recess—I think that it would be fair for there to be some negotiation with those individuals who find themselves on the Cross Benches, who have a great deal of interest in Northern Irish matters and who might have some difficulties with whatever arrangements I, or indeed the Liberal Democrats, come to.

My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating in your Lordships' House the Prime Minister's Statement in another place—even if, to be realistic, nothing that we are likely to say here will determine in any way the immediate events in Northern Ireland. We congratulate the Prime Minister on everything that he has done personally to resolve the crisis, just as we applauded John Major from these Benches for his brave attempts to solve the problems of Northern Ireland.

As for the Statement, we agree with what the Prime Minister said about the Good Friday agreement. We agree also about the three principles to which all parties were committed on 25th June and with the current challenge to those parties that progress represents.

I think it is correct to say that those of us here must recognise that it is desperately difficult to trust Sinn Fein in the present circumstances, given its past record. However, this must be done, given the situation that has now been reached based on the assumption that its leadership genuinely wants the Good Friday agreement to work. Indeed, I think that the evidence of the Statement and all that has happened in the past few days shows that we are very close to the further agreement that would make the Good Friday agreement meaningful. It should be possible to find a way in which the timing is such that the gap between setting up the executive and the commencement of decommissioning is so narrow as to be almost simultaneous.

I see in the Statement reference to "within a couple of days". That is reassuring to a degree, but I wonder whether, in practice, it might become an even shorter period. It would be a tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland who want peace if their leaders cannot now go the whole way regarding the agreement presented to them. They must—here we reach an inevitable cliché—have a leap of the imagination and an act of courage in which personal reputations do not matter because peace does.

I have three questions to put, perhaps tentatively, to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. First, can she say something more about the present timetable for decommissioning? If the executive is set up on 15th July, when is it assumed that decommissioning will begin? Is it the two days referred to in the Statement—which seems to be a shorter period than mentioned hitherto? Secondly, if Sinn Fein fails to deliver, would it be open to the executive to continue without Sinn Fein? As I understand it—perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify this point—it will be open to the rest of the executive to choose what to do or for the Assembly to make that decision.

The third point is a difficult one, and I may be very wide of the mark. Would it not help if General de Chastelain made more frequent reports so that, if the worst happened and decommissioning stopped, action with regard to the executive would be immediate? At present, I think that he is expected to report every three months; a shorter interval might be helpful. However, none of this should be taken to be any attempt to negotiate. It is uniquely the case that, as in times of war, the Government must be supported in their endeavours to reach objectives that we all share.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support of the broad outlines of the Statement. I shall of course echo back to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister the words that have been spoken about his role—particularly last week, with his strenuous efforts on behalf of the agreement. I of course acknowledge the enormously important work of the right honourable gentleman Mr Major in beginning this process. One of the tremendous virtues of the process so far has been the bipartisan nature of the efforts that have been made. I am grateful to the noble Lord for confirming that that will continue. We obviously hope very much that it will do so both in words and in practice.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has said, we are all united in our broad aims of trying to achieve an inclusive executive in Northern Ireland for a devolved form of government and to achieve decommissioning. Both noble Lords rightly place great stress on the nature of the decommissioning process and the timetable—or the "sequencing" as it is called in the Northern Ireland jargon—of the decommissioning and the establishment of the executive. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there was no decommissioning precondition in the Good Friday agreement, but there is an obligation. That obligation is reinforced and made much more explicit by the statement of Friday.

I think that one point has changed, which was emphasised in the Statement: we are no longer dependent upon trust—I agree with those who are suspicious of trust in this area—but upon action. As I repeated in the Statement, that action is set out clearly in the timetable that has been agreed with General John de Chastelain about the benchmarks that he will require on the decommissioning beginning immediately after the executive has been established.

Of course, there are always concerns about whether any group of people represented in the political process is speaking for the paramilitaries, on either side, whom it claims to represent. However, I think that the House will have noted the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister this morning—uttered not in the other place but in an interview—when he said he believed that last week he was listening to the authentic voice of the IRA. However, as I have said, this is not a time to depend solely on words. We can, in this instance, depend on the actions that have been set out in the agreement and which are put forward clearly in terms of a time frame.

Both noble Lords were concerned about when the fail-safe agreements will kick in if anyone defaults on the agreement. As my right honourable friend said in the Statement, if default occurs, the institutions would be suspended automatically while we find a way forward. However, as he also said, there would be two vital differences from where we are now. The blame for default is clear and the parties are free to move on in an executive without the defaulting party. I hope that it is explicit to noble Lords who raised the issue that the situation could be taken forward without Sinn Fein being part of the executive. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords about the Statement's interpretation in parts of the media that some parties might be penalised if the paramilitaries did not decommission.

It is worth repeating that the parties have the option of excluding any party from the executive if it does not meet its commitments. Only if that does not happen would the Government here take action to suspend the institutions. That would be a drastic step but it would be prompted by a clear breach of faith by the party responsible.

The point about the arrangements for the failsafe on the executive is clearly set out and would kick in immediately if there were any breach of the undertakings under the de Chastelain benchmarks. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, wanted more detail about the timetable. I repeat that the first report on decommissioning will take place in September. There will then be a report on the decommissioning process at three-month intervals until May 2000 is reached.

The point of the reports is to enable the fail-safe arrangements, which will be brought forward in the legislative process, to take place. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that that will require primary legislation. I take the point, as I did last week when we spoke of the possibility of there being a Statement and order on devolution, that Cross-Benchers should be included in the process. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, when he raised the point last Thursday, I am sure that the usual channels will extend their consideration to the Cross-Benchers in this particular instance.

The noble Lord raised the issue of the prisoners, which is always an extremely difficult issue. He is only too well aware that the release of the prisoners is dependent on whether organisations are maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires. I am sure that he will have noted the statement of the chief constable last week that nothing the Secretary of State has done in this context was in his view inappropriate on the basis of the briefings he had been given about the security situation and the ceasefire.

I say to noble Lords in general that the anxieties which surround the whole issue, specifically as regards prisoners and more broadly as regards trust, are more than clear to those who have followed the history and been involved in the political decisions for so long. I re-emphasise what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in his concluding remarks, that it would be a tragedy if we reached this point and then, in the words of the Prime Minister, had to rewind the whole process. I simply echo his words that this is the best hope for a generation and hope that the legitimate anxieties can be assuaged.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept that one can have only admiration for the Herculean character at the efforts of the Prime Minister and of the Taoiseach in seeking to secure from all parties fulfilment of their obligations under the Good Friday agreement? Every one of us must hope to see an agreed and fair way forward.

However, will the noble Baroness also agree that there has developed what was described on the BBC at lunchtime today as a fog of confusion as to what really is on offer? For that reason, the fail-safe agreement to the deal promulgated on Friday speaks of the Government's commitment to the automatic and immediate suspension of the Assembly, the executive and other institutions in the event of certificated failure to meet an obligation to decommission. It will be automatic and immediate, which is all one gets from the agreement of last Friday.

However, today, again on the BBC, the Prime Minister said that it would be open to the Unionist and other parties to go forward with devolved government without Sinn Fein and that he would expect them to do so. Does the Minister agree that that is a very different outcome and, to those who do not wish to see improper influence being accorded to terrorists, a very much more acceptable outcome? That is not least because if the Unionists were to suffer the loss of devolved government, which to them has been such a special prize, it would be deeply unjust if the cause were simply the failure of the IRA to decommission.

Does the noble Baroness agree that it is necessary for the Government to make more sharply clear that they would invite the parties to proceed on the executive without Sinn Fein in those circumstances and to continue to repeat that? I am sure that she will agree with me that the public's fear that the Government are being taken for a ride by extraordinarily adroit politicians and practitioners on the Republican side are rational and never ever to be underestimated.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for allowing me to repeat and underline some of the points which were made more explicit in the Statement than in previous media interviews. It is the case that if the de Chastelain process records a default by one member or one party to the executive, the organisation is suspended. Indeed, the Government would encourage other parties to the executive to go forward. Perhaps I may repeat that the Prime Minister said that we should be back to where we are now, but with the two vital differences. First, the blame for default would be clear, which is not particularly relevant to the noble and learned Lord's point but is still in the text; and secondly, all the parties would then be free to move on in an executive without the defaulting party.

I am happy to repeat what my right honourable friend said in another place. The Government would encourage them to do so. But, as he also said, he cannot make people sit down in the executive and he cannot force them to form a government. However, it is his position that the UK Government, working closely with their Irish colleagues, will do what they can to encourage the process to continue. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for drawing attention to the role of a Taoiseach in that process.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House clarify that point? Have the Government had any indication from the SDLP whether it would support the exclusion of Sinn Fein because of an adverse report from de Chastelain either in September, December or May? I understood that exclusion would have to be voted upon under the d'Hondt system and that if the SDLP did not support that exclusion that would act as the impediment to the process.

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot offer any insight as to the position of the SDLP. However, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to its significance, particularly in terms of the possible vote within the executive. I can only say to the noble Lord that if the black scenario which he projects were to occur, the fail-safe proceedings on which there will be legislation would kick in. Although the situation would be less productive than the one I suggested in response to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, a view could be taken about proceeding with the executive without Sinn Fein.

Perhaps I may join the admiration which has been expressed on all sides of the House for the Prime Minister's dedication, patience and skill in pursuing these negotiations. He has made a remarkable effort and I believe that it should be recognised as such by everyone.

May I also add to that my expression of admiration for the work of the Northern Ireland Secretary, Dr Mo Mowlam, without whose skill and charm the Good Friday talks might never have been held? We should not forget that, because she has not had an easy task in trying to be number two to a Prime Minister who is so obviously shining in his success. Would the Leader of the House not agree with me that it is time to stop the nit-picking? Every time she is asked a question, "Would the Prime Minister dot that T; Would the Prime Minister cross that and "Is the Prime Minister being misled here and fooled there?", it counteracts the impression we have all been giving of belief in his sincerity. We are in fact saying that we do not trust his word and we do not trust what he has achieved. Is it not true that all the verbal safeguards that anybody can devise will be no guarantee that the peace process will in effect lead to a peaceful Ireland unless there is a change of heart on both sides of the sectarian divide? I think that we have enough evidence of that change of heart on one side and I hope the Unionists will parallel it on theirs.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what she said about the Prime Minister's efforts, re-emphasising, as it were, our personal congratulations to him. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, used the expression "Herculean" about the undertakings in which he had been involved last week, and I think that is quite appropriate. I am also very grateful to her for what she said about my right honourable friend, Dr Mowlam. We all seek to congratulate her. The combination of skill and charm to which my noble friend rightly referred has been unparalleled and extremely important at difficult moments in this long process.

My noble friend referred to nit-picking. We have to be a little careful about how we distinguish between what we regard as irritating attention to detail and appropriate anxieties, to which I was hoping to refer in the contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I would agree with her that obviously we must not allow the attention to the minutiae to distract us from the enormous achievement that has been made, but I would also just remind noble Lords of the final words of the Prime Minister's Statement, which I repeated, in which he said that this should be discussed in detail, that it should be engaged with, but again his final sentence was, "But don't throw away the best chance for peace we will have this generation". I am sure my noble and learned friend would agree with that.

My Lords, I join other Members of the House in most warmly welcoming the Statement of the Prime Minister this afternoon and in asking the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether she agrees that the form of argument which might be used with Loyalist politicians would be strengthened if it were admitted that they were faced at this moment with a forced choice between the lesser of evils? On the one hand, there is the evil that people of violence appear not unequivocally to have renounced the use of violent means before their nearest political neighbours sharing the same political aims benefit from, or apparently benefit from, the campaign of indiscriminate terror that has been waged. On the other hand, there is the greater evil that the process itself, which was begun on the richly symbolic day, Good Friday, should grind to a halt and the Province return to the appalling circumstances of the past 30 years.

My mother was an Irish woman—born in County Sligo—and was separated a child from her father because of the religious politics of her day. I am therefore passionately concerned for the future of Ireland. If ever there were a just case for warfare, it only presents itself in the form of a choice between evils. Is it not conceivable that the making of peace at this moment too involves such a choice, but may we not ask the Unionist community to make it and thereby enjoy the support of very many other people of goodwill, both on the mainland and much more widely throughout the world?

My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the right reverend Prelate for putting the whole situation in Ireland, both historically and today, in such vivid terns. I think he made a very important plea for a non-sectarian future for Northern Ireland and I am sure that that is one that the House would echo. I simply say to the right reverend Prelate that we would hope that the choices he presents are less bleak than the ones which he outlined in his vivid contribution, and would hope that the twin aims of decommissioning and the inclusive devolved assembly would bring people together in that non-sectarian venture which requires courage on every side but, as he rightly says, is probably the only way forward.

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that 30 years ago next month, her father, the then Home Secretary, was responsible for sending British troops into Northern Ireland in the wake of the trouble which had broken out then. At that time, I think around about 15 people had been killed. Since then, more than 3,000 people have been brutally murdered in Northern Ireland. The passions which existed in 1960 have been multiplied time and time again and, at this present time, there is a great deal of distrust between both communities in Northern Ireland.

I have said repeatedly in this House and outside it that the one big mistake made in the Good Friday agreement was not to have contained the issue of decommissioning. It has been hanging over our heads like the sword of Damocles every minute since then. Now we must answer and try to grapple with the circumstances which have arisen because that issue was not contained.

Is it a question of 24, 48 or 72 hours on which this whole process hinges because Sinn Fein has said that, unless the executive is formed, it is not going to give any undertaking on decommissioning? The Unionists say, "Our manifesto, our party policy, is that you must enter into the process of decommissioning before you are admitted into the executive". Is it realistic that the whole process of peace in Northern Ireland should hinge on 24, 48 or 72 hours? Again, I have to support what has been said by many people in Northern Ireland. There is a good deal of confusion as to how the fail-safe device will work. It looks at the moment that if Sinn Fein does not give an undertaking to General de Chastelain that it will decommission—people will interpret it to their own satisfaction—then the whole Assembly could be brought to an end. I think it would be very, very unfair if democrats elected to that Assembly should be cast out to the wilderness because the members of Sinn Fein, the perpetrators of murder, have not agreed to disarmament.

I have not read in any great detail the commentaries which have been given by the Loyalist paramilitaries. At least the Sinn Fein representatives who are to be appointed to the executive have not been convicted of murder. There are Loyalist representatives in the Assembly who have been convicted of murder and have served a long time in prison. What happens if their ceasefire breaks down? Are they to be excluded from the Assembly? Are the Sinn Fein representatives on the executive to be banished from the executive but still maintain their positions in the Assembly?

Before one can begin to envisage peace in Northern Ireland, the Government must be seen to be acting equally and bringing out equality on both sides.

Over the past two or three days, there has been an absolute avalanche of criticism mobilised against the Unionist party. There are two communities in Northern Ireland. I believe that David Trimble has gone out of his way to do all he possibly can in this process and the Government should go out of their way to assist him. Otherwise, he will be abolished by his own party and the whole agreement will fall into the abyss.

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks from an extremely authoritative background on this issue. He reminded me of my long-term family connections with the situation in Northern Ireland. But even so, I cannot match his experience.

I simply remind the noble Lord of what I said in response to an earlier question on the issue of exclusion of parties from the assembly. The parties have the option of excluding any party from the executive if it does not meet its commitment. That was extremely clear. He is right to draw attention to the role of the Loyalist paramilitaries. He will have noted that the Statement referred to the fact that a great deal of the recent violence has come from that source.

The particular point about the executive, which is at the nub of the present concerns about the fail-safe arrangement, is that the Loyalist paramilitary groups would not be represented within the executive because the parties which are, as it were, the democratic face of the loyalist paramilitaries do not have sufficient seats, under the d'Hondt system, to be represented on the executive. Therefore that issue is constitutionally irrelevant.

However, I repeat that there are all the concerns to which the noble Lord rightly drew attention about the detail of the decommissioning process. That process will have been said to have started if, within a couple of days—I use General de Chastelain's phrase—the commitment on decommissioning is given by the IRA and it appoints a link person to negotiate all the precise details with his team. That will set the decommissioning process in train. As I said in answer to other questions, that will be followed by certain benchmark activities which must be satisfied during the coming months.

However, I merely say to the noble Lord and to the whole House that if we do not follow through and we are not able to deliver on the agreement, there will be no decommissioning at all.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has handled questions so far. She has shed light on some difficult points.

However, the fog persists. Does she not agree that one of the main reasons for that confusion across the water is the way in which Sinn Fein and IRA spokesmen seem, day by day, to be saying one thing to their own supporters and another to the Prime Minister? If that ambivalence persists during this crucial month, the chances of the Unionists reaching a satisfactory conclusion are bound to be greatly reduced.

The second point has not yet been made. Will the noble Baroness accept—I am sure she will—that the Statement today and the events over the weekend put a huge burden on General de Chastelain? His integrity and good sense impress anyone who meets him. However, he now carries that burden. It is his job to be clear and not to throw a cloak over any ambiguities and things which are going wrong. The whole process depends not just on the Herculean efforts of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach but also on the capacity and integrity of that Canadian general. Will the noble Baroness assure us that he will receive full support in the independent carrying out of his role?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for allowing me to say that there is an enormous burden on General de Chastelain. Our Government and the fish Government have recently recognised that explicitly. He will receive the full support of both Governments in the extraordinarily delicate work which he undertakes.

I go back to the noble Lord's earlier comments. The ambivalence which he describes must be resolved by actions, not words. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has set out in such detail the way in which the defaulting system, if one can call it that, kicks in once the devolution process, if it does begin, begins. After two days—and General de Chastelain used the expression "a couple of days"—we need to see the agreement from the IRA to the decommissioning process. If in September and further on in subsequent months General de Chastelain is then able to report that the benchmarking process has been agreed, those actions will in a sense reinforce the whole political process. They will be crucial to it. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has insisted on those objective tests of movement on decommissioning rather than, as I said in answer to the original point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, relying on people's good faith. That has been sorely tested in this process.

I repeat to the House—because it may not have been clear, judging by the questions which have been asked—that all those fail-safe arrangements will be set out in legislation. That is being consulted on urgently and I know that my right honourable friend is hoping to bring forward the legislation within a matter of days.

moved Amendment No. 288C:

Page 106, line 38, leave out ("Greater London") and insert ("the Greater London area").

We have similar difficulties with these amendments as with Amendment No. 288B. Amendment No. 288C seeks to define the geographical area covered by the LTUC. Noble Lords will recognise—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said—that the boundary of LTUC in its role as a rail users' consultative committee is much wider than Greater London or indeed the outer boundary of TfL services. However, the assembly is not prevented from selecting people from outside the boundary of the Greater London Authority, and it is important to recognise that the rail regulator has the opportunity to contribute to the process of appointments. If the noble Baroness remains concerned on the issue of boundaries, I am prepared to consider whether the geographical area covered by the LTUC may be more clearly defined in the Bill.

We do not believe that Amendment No. 288D is necessary. Decisions about appointments are taken by the assembly in consultation with the rail regulator. A basic purpose of the committee is to assist the assembly in the scrutiny of the mayor's policy and the performance of TfL. It would clearly be perverse for the mayor to participate in the proceedings of the committee as its chair while his or her policies were under debate. We believe that that is so obvious that the assembly does not need an express provision in the Bill to point it out.

I am conscious that the noble Baroness, in speaking to her second amendment, was commenting on the strength of the language. I hope she feels reassured by the clear expression that it would be perverse for that to happen and will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

On Amendment No. 288D, I believe that it is the job of this Committee and the House as a revising Chamber to exclude any possibility of perversity. Nevertheless, I shall admit to an argument that the noble Baroness has not used against me. We have sought all the way through the Bill to give the assembly as much flexibility as possible vis-à-vis the mayor. Perhaps there is logic in my accepting the rather odd situation with which we are presented on that amendment.

I am grateful for the comments of the Minister on the first of the amendments. It would be useful to provide for what we are agreed upon. On the basis that the Government will consider returning with an amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

moved Amendment No. 289:

Page 107, line 2, at end insert (", or

(e) any officer or employee or member of a company having business with the Authority or with Transport for London, or any company in which Transport for London has an interest, which generates revenue in any twelve month period (measured according to generally accepted principles of accounting) in excess of £10,000, or any officer or employee of any company under the control of such a company, or which is controlled by a company which also controls such a company").

These amendments cover a range of matters concerning LTUC, including provisions on membership, on audit and public accountability, and on the actual subject matter to be considered by the LTUC.

Amendment No. 289 is similar, as the noble Lord acknowledged, to one we debated last week in relation to the independent bus permits appeals body. The Government wish to see public bodies, such as LTUC, representing the full diversity of the communities who use the services. Yet the effect of this amendment would be to debar a significant number of people from applying for membership of LTUC. For example, the amendment would disqualify those working for firms providing office supplies, financial services and catering contracts to TfL, none of which is directly linked to transport provision, and many of which could easily be in excess of the £10,000 threshold contained in the amendment. On Thursday, the noble Lord acknowledged that the figure of £10,000 was perhaps too low.

At present, members of the London Regional Passengers' Committee, in common with members of the other rail users' consultative committees, are asked to disclose financial interests in the transport sector, and may be asked to divest themselves of such assets prior to appointment. That non-statutory method of managing conflicts of interests has worked effectively. We see no reason why the same practice should not be followed.

Moreover, it is the assembly which is to appoint members of LTUC. The assembly will want the LTUC to be independent, and will no doubt make appointments accordingly. We believe that the amendment is disproportionate, and that this is a matter for common sense rather than one requiring legislation.

Amendment No. 290 would require the assembly to appoint external auditors for LTUC. The Government plan to bring forward technical proposals of their own at a later stage to ensure that the audit provisions for LTUC fit within the overall structure for the Greater London Authority and its constituent parts. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord in that respect. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Some of the amendments are proposed with the best of intentions but can cause practical problems. Amendment No. 292 is such an example. I am sure that, as a public consultative body, LTUC will strive to give timely notice of its meetings. However, the amendment would prevent LTUC meeting to discuss issues within a shorter timescale. A consultative body such as this should be allowed the flexibility to react to events in a timely way.

Amendment No. 293 would require the committee to give notice to the public of items from which they may be excluded. It would cause administrative difficulties. Although the confidentiality provisions in the Bill permit some items to be taken in private session if provided in confidence by the rail regulator or franchising director, other items can only be held in private session if the committee formally resolves to do so. Such decisions can only be taken at the relevant committee meeting.

I should perhaps add that it is the LRPC's normal practice for confidential items to be taken together so as to minimise inconvenience to members of the public who wish to attend the relevant meeting. That is not always possible and it would be inappropriate to limit LTUC in this way. I hope therefore that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

These are small points but if things went wrong they could cause a great deal of trouble. Have the Government thought about this? Three days is a very short time in which to give notice of a public meeting. Would it not be a good idea to have something on the face of the Bill.

We all know that there will be occasions when a body such as the new London Transport Users' Committee will want to be able to say it has held a public meeting but is not keen on too many people expressing their views at that meeting. Putting a minimum period of notice on the face of the Bill is certainly desirable, and I cannot imagine that less than three days would ever be required.

In relation to Amendment No. 293, will the agenda containing the items to be discussed in private be publicly available, or will the agenda of those items also be private? If the normal access to information applies, the agenda will explain what the items are. If the public know what the items are, then the chairman will have to give an explanation in order to get the members of the public to leave the meeting. One can trivialise this matter a little too much. Trouble could easily arise at these meetings.

When similar issues were raised from these Benches in connection with meetings of the assembly and public meetings, we detected—without commitment—a little sympathy on the part of the noble Baroness that they require careful attention. I hope that we can return to those earlier amendments at a later stage and that the Government will be prepared to agree to some minor alterations of the Bill simply in the interests of the good working of the new authority.

The points made in this current debate are very much in the same category. No ground is lost if this matter is conceded; it simply enables the Bill to provide what it should provide for the right sort of regulations. Will the Minister be prepared to consider these aspects of this part of the Bill with the equivalent provisions relating to another part of the new organisation?

Before the noble Baroness responds, can she give the Committee some idea of what matters are likely to be of such an emergency nature that it would be impossible to give three days' notice of their discussion at a meeting? Presumably, meetings will be held on a regular basis at fixed intervals and there would be no problem in giving the three days' notice provided for in the amendment. The Minister says that if we write this into the Bill it will prevent the committee having special meetings to discuss some item which requires prompt consideration. Can she tell us what kind of items might be likely to be taken at such a meeting?

A matter of public safety would be an example. I cannot think of another example off the top of my head. If a restriction was placed on the committee, it would not be able to convene in a situation where there was that nature of urgency. I am happy to give the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the assurance that we will give careful thought to this matter when we come back with amendments on the issue of guidance to LTUC from the assembly.

Can the Minister tell me if the agenda will be public, even if some of the items are private? Will people know what the private items are if they come to a public meeting?

That is a matter to which we can return in terms of guidance. Obviously, there would need to be enough information for people to be aware of the decisions being taken. I am sure the noble Baroness can remember from her distinguished days in local government that there was always enough information on an agenda to be able to tell that the nature of the business being taken had to be taken in private.

That was because of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, which I do not believe applies here.

Another example of when a meeting might have to be convened at short notice is if a major bus operator suddenly went into liquidation. There may need to be quick discussions taking place in such a situation.

I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, as to whether that Act applies.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who felt able to support at least the principle of two of the amendments. I shall read with interest what the noble Baroness had to say in relation to the first amendment. It may be that the provisions for disclosure of information will satisfy me.

In relation to the second amendment, I look forward again with interest to the technical proposals on audit which the Minister intends to bring forward. On the matter of allowing three clear days' notice, the explanation that there might be a matter of urgency which would need less than that is difficult to accept. Frankly, there will be up to 24 members on this committee plus the chairman, and I feel it would be difficult to organise a meeting of that number within three days in any case. It is not easy to arrange such a meeting at short notice.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, gave an example of the possible liquidation of a London bus operator. I would have thought that was more a matter for Transport for London than the new London Transport Users' Committee. It might be something with which the LTUC will have to deal, but I doubt that it would need to do anything immediately. It would be for Transport for London to produce an alternative operator if that was required. The reasons therefore for not allowing three days' notice are pretty thin. As I understand it, local authorities are required to give that amount of notice and I cannot understand why the LTUC should not be able to do so also.

The explanation to be given to the public as to why they are being excluded from the meeting relates to a very small request. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, it could lead to trouble if people find themselves being thrown out of a meeting without being told why. However, I shall not pursue the amendments at this point. Nevertheless, I shall study the Minister's response with care and reserve the right to return to such issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 290A:

Page 236, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

This amendment is unnecessary and could impose undue restrictions on the provision of accommodation for the committee. It is unlikely that the assembly would not provide accommodation for the committee that it had just appointed. However, there could be a situation where the committee is provided with accommodation in which the assembly had no hand. The assembly is already under a duty to provide the committee with funds for expenses incurred, and these could include accommodation costs.

Under Schedule 14, the assembly is under a duty to make funds available for expenses which could cover accommodation. The committee may want to make its own arrangements with funds provided by the assembly. Therefore, there is no need to make it a duty for the assembly to make arrangements for accommodation.

The rail regulator is involved here because of his role as sponsor of the rail users' consultative committees, of which LTUC would be one. With those explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Perhaps my amendment should have sought to delete the paragraph. By tabling an amendment in the same form as it appeared in another place, I now realise that I tempted the answer I have received, which I fear does not deal with my concerns. However, they are not the most major issues in the Bill.

I see that the Minister is looking puzzled. It seems to me that paragraph 5, which talks about the assembly providing the committee with funds to "defray" expenses, should be all that one needs to provide for accommodation. However, I shall not pursue the point at this stage. As I said, it is not the most important issue in the whole scheme of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 290B:

Page 237, line 5, after ("sub-committees") insert ("or officers").

Officers of a committee such as the London Transport Users' Committee are responsible for much day-to-day activity and integral to its success. It is indeed right that it should work without the risk of possible legal action. However, the right level of protection under the law comes from acting within the broad framework of committee policy and considering representations accordingly. The officers are able to do so under the Bill without the proposed amendment. We are not aware that any problems have arisen under the present arrangements to which LRPC is subject. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Before my noble friend decides what to do with her amendment, I should point out that this issue was also debated in another place. In the course of the argument that took place, the Minister said that the amendment would make LTUC's arrangements inconsistent with those for other rail users' consultative committees—indeed, an argument which the Minister used when dealing with the other amendment that we have just discussed. I find that quite an interesting way of putting things. To my way of thinking, it takes us back to the previous amendment which was directed at trying to ensure that the new representative organisation represents the interests of public users of transport rather than the users of all transport. It is as though the Minister was saying that it will be like a rail users' committee; but it is not. It is going to be a different sort of committee. The Government must make up their mind as to what sort of committee we are talking about.

Reverting to the previous amendment, the answer is that in this case the rail users' consultative committee for the area is LTUC. The other answer is that, although it is that, it is that plus; in other words, it has a value added over and above that. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.

We are used to being not quite as satisfied as we would wish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 291:

Page 237, line 5, at end insert—

("() The Committee shall appoint a sub-committee whose sole responsibility shall be to deal with complaints about door-to-door transport.").

Again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for tabling Amendment No. 291, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, for moving it this afternoon. She did so with all her customary persuasiveness. I welcome the amendment and underline the importance of her point about ensuring that the body helping users of door-to-door transport is adequately resourced and dedicated to dealing with this complicated area of provision. I will not detain the Committee further except to say that this is an important amendment to which I know that my noble friend the Minister will want to reply as helpfully as he can.

I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 291 and to refer to our Amendment No. 294B which states that the functions of the authority that relate to transport should include transport for those with mobility impairments. The Minister has already told us that he is prepared to have a meeting with those who have taken a great interest in this matter. For that reason I do not propose to discuss this amendment in further detail.

I believe that the concerns which lie behind these two amendments could perhaps be dealt with in the meeting, as the noble Baroness suggests. It is our view that these amendments are unnecessary. Of course it is right that LTUC should be able to consider representations from all transport users, including in particular those who use door-to-door transport. The Bill already provides for LTUC to consider representations from the users of such services directly provided or funded by TfL, including Dial-a-Ride. However, there is no need to spell that out on the face of the Bill.

The reference in Clause 200(1)(a) to the transport functions of the authority and TfL includes precisely those functions relating to the provision of transport services to disabled people. The mayor will of course have a duty to include in his or her transport strategy proposals for the provision of accessible transport and TfL will be responsible for implementing those proposals. LTUC will be consulted and will be able to comment on those proposals. These activities are therefore clearly functions which LTUC can consider.

As regards Amendment No. 294B, clearly what I have said about the provisions in Clause 200(1)(a) relating to transport functions already provide for this matter to be covered. As to prescribing a sub-committee, I believe it would be rare to include provisions on the face of a Bill describing how an organisation should divide itself into sub-committees. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, may be thinking of something rather more than a sub-committee, although Amendment No. 291 refers to a sub-committee.

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 14 already provides LTUC with the power to form sub-committees and to co-opt people on to them who are not members of the committee. The assembly will have to ensure that LTUC truly represents all users of transport in London, including disabled people and so on. I think it would be an unhelpful precedent for us to specify how bodies set up in statute should organise themselves in terms of sub-committees, especially as in this case it is clear that what the noble Baroness seeks is already covered by other provisions in this Bill. Nevertheless if there are remaining anxieties I shall discuss them with those interested, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, suggested.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for his welcome support. He stressed that this is an important amendment and that it is important to get it right. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for her support. I welcome very much indeed what the Minister has said. I find it greatly reassuring. I think that the matter of the expert body of people is exactly the kind of matter that we could pursue further in the meeting. I am most grateful for the offer of a meeting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 291A:

Page 237, line 19, after second ("the") insert ("Authority, Transport for London, the").

As the noble Baroness has indicated that she does not accept my main objection to the amendments as drafted—namely, that they would clearly make the London Transport Users' Committee operate under a different system from that which applies to the Rail Users' Consultative Committee—I am not sure that I will be able to convince her totally of my position. Nevertheless, as I think she recognised at various points, these amendments would be much more suitable to guidance than on the face of the Bill. For example, Amendment No. 291A would place TfL in a rather odd position. It would give information imparted by TfL the same status as that imparted by the regulatory bodies, whereas TfL is, in this sense, a service provider.

Apart from the fact that it would be inconsistent with the provisions on other rail user consultative committees, Amendment No. 291 B seeks to limit the kinds of information provided by the franchising director and the rail regulator which are subject to being heard in private. If that were restricted it could well hinder the flow of information between the regulatory bodies and the committees, which would be undesirable.

As to Amendment No. 294C, while it is understandable that the committee would wish to have access to information held by the GLA—and, in nearly every case, also by Transport for London—it is equally clear that a constructive relationship is a better way of achieving this than by putting it on the face of the Bill. If there is any difficulty it is, of course, open to the LTUC to approach the assembly to ask for assistance; the assembly will have powers to require TfL to provide information. We hope to avoid that situation if we follow the noble Baroness's view that this is more appropriate to guidance.

As to the final amendment concerning reasons, clearly we would normally expect reasons to be given. If reasons are not given, again it would be open to the LTUC to raise the matter with assembly members in accordance with other provisions in the Bill; they can always question the mayor and obtain answers at that point. Again, we hope that this will be a matter where good practice and a constructive growth of relations will ensure that in most cases the mayor or TfL would automatically give reasons. If that requirement were to be on the face of the Bill, one would have to bring forward an amendment which recognised that there would be certain circumstances where the mayor or TfL were constrained from giving reasons; for example, because of on-going legal proceedings, privacy and so on. It would be a more complicated amendment. I feel that this should be subject to the organic growth of good relations, perhaps subject to guidance, as the noble Baroness has suggested. I therefore request that she withdraws her amendments.

I do not want to damage the chances of matters we would like to see in the guidance by starting on a path of commenting on what seems to be in the Bill and what seems to be left out—with not, to our eyes, huge distinctions between the two. We should be very happy for quite a lot of the prescription around this subject to go into guidance. I am happy to wait until I see the Government's amendments on guidance.

I, among others of your Lordships, have been lax and have failed to ask when the draft guidance might be available for consideration. The Minister might have thought that he was going to get away without being asked that question. He might like to respond now.

We are referring here to guidance by the assembly rather than by the Secretary of State. Although that is normally the question, it is not appropriate at this point.

I deserved that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 294:

Page 237, line 39, leave out paragraph 14.

The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is absolutely correct. At one stage I had thought of making a dramatic concession on the floor of House. It is a matter on which we all clearly agree. Unlike its predecessor, the LTUC is not a government NDPB. Therefore, in those circumstances, it is not appropriate that the Treasury should be involved. I agree with the noble Lord.

moved Amendment No. 294E:

Page 240, leave out lines 37 to 40 and insert—

("(5) A fee of such amount (if any) as Transport for London may determine shall be paid to Transport for London—

(a) by any applicant for a licence under this section, on making the application for the licence;

(b) by any applicant for the taking or re-taking of any test or examination, or any part of a test or examination, with respect to any matter of fitness, on making the application for the taking or re-taking of the test, examination or part; and

(c) by any person granted a licence under this section, on the grant of the licence.

(5A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of this section "matter of fitness" means—

(a) any matter as respects which Transport for London must be satisfied before granting a licence under this section; or

(b) any matter such that, if Transport for London is not satisfied with respect to the matter, they may refuse to grant a licence under this section.

(5B) Different amount may be determined under subsection (5) of this section for different purposes or different cases.

(5C) Transport for London may remit or refund the whole or part of a fee under subsection (5) of this section.").

With the leave of the Committee, I would like to thank the Minister very much for what he said about our much-cherished colleague, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. He was not only a man of many interests, which included a profound love and knowledge of jazz, but was the dearest, kindest colleague that anybody could have. I never heard him express a cross word or saw him to be anything except smiling and delightful. He will be greatly missed, not only for his contribution to our debates but for his charm and personality.

Hear, hear!

I would, from these Benches, like to be associated with the remarks of the Minister and the noble Baroness.

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.

Earlier in the passage of the Bill in another place, my colleague Glenda Jackson gave an undertaking to take away and consider an amendment to provide for Transport for London to be able to charge fees on application for the grant of a taxi driver's and vehicle licence. That undertaking recognised the considerable support from the taxi trade, members of both Houses and others that the measure has attracted.

The current position is that taxi drivers pay fees only for the grant, including renewal, of drivers' and vehicle licences, but the work involved in the lead-up to the grant of a licence can vary greatly from case to case. For example, some would-be taxi drivers pass the knowledge of London test fairly quickly. Others require a number of tests, with the resources that involves, before they pass—if they pass at all. The effect of the current charging system is that people have no incentive properly to prepare themselves or their vehicles before going forward for a test.

The result is inefficiency because the resources of the Public Carriage Office are wasted on testing people or vehicles that are not ready. The result is also unfairness. People who have prepared properly are undoubtedly kept waiting. People who pass the test and gain a licence are in effect paying in their licence fee for people who did not prepare adequately and have failed. That cannot be right.

Amendments Nos. 294E and 294F address that anomaly by providing for TfL to charge for the initial application for a taxi driver and vehicle licence, and for any test or re-test arising from the licence application. The amendments fulfil the Government's undertaking in another place and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.

The taxi community asked me to bring forward such amendments but it is so good to see that the Minister has done so. I strongly support them.

moved Amendment No. 294F:

Page 241, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—

("(7) A fee of such amount (if any) as Transport for London may determine shall be paid to Transport for London—

(a) by any applicant for a licence under this section, on making the application for the licence;

(b) by any applicant for the taking or re-taking of any test or examination, or any part of a test or examination, with respect to any matter of fitness, on making the application for the taking or re-taking of the test, examination or part; and

(c) by any person granted a licence under this section, on the grant of the licence.

(8) In paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of this section "matter of fitness" means—

(a) any matter as respects which Transport for London must be satisfied before granting a licence under this section; or

(b) any matter such that, if Transport for London is not satisfied with respect to the matter, they may refuse to grant a licence under this section.

(9) Different amounts may be determined under subsection (7) of this section for different purposes or different cases.

(10) Transport for London may remit or refund the whole or part of a fee under subsection (7) of this section.").

moved Amendment 294G:

After Clause 205, insert the following new clause—

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the new clause. I only wonder how the Woolwich ferry could have been forgotten for so long, until the Bill reached a Committee of this House.

Does the Woolwich ferry make or lose money? I suspect that it loses money. If so, presumably it currently receives a subsidy from the Secretary of State. If that is the case, will that subsidy be paid by Transport for London? Will the Secretary of State therefore make a special grant to TfL? If the Woolwich ferry makes a profit, all well and good. Presumably the TfL will enjoy that profit. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.

While scribes are scribing in other parts of this Committee, perhaps I may simply rise to welcome the amendment—which is thoroughly sensible and a delightful example of not exactly devolution but, at any rate, devolvement of power. It is most satisfactory.

Why was it decided to transfer the powers this way, rather than by the tidier method of repealing the 1885 Act and conferring the powers directly on TfL?

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is correct. The present provisions for the Woolwich ferry arise from the 1885 Act, but we felt that, rather than make an amendment to that statute, it would be appropriate to insert an explicit clause.

As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I believe that the requirement is to run a free service. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. The annual running costs are paid directly by the Secretary of State. Henceforth, the money will form part of the GLA transport grant and be included within that.

moved Amendment 295:

After Clause 205, insert the following new clause—

I strongly support the amendment. I particularly support the noble Baroness's previous point. We have just welcomed government Amendment No. 294G, which could have been achieved in a different way; namely, by amendment of another Act. The Government's response was that they felt that this was the more suitable place to introduce the provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has made precisely the same point. This is a good opportunity to put forward this new piece of legislation governing taxis in London.

I cannot resist the temptation to support the noble Baroness's amendment. As a keen anti-smoker, I believe it is right to enable drivers to ban smoking from their taxis. It is rather a long amendment; however, the noble Baroness has provided a ready explanation for that. Perhaps her next move will be to change some of the custom and practice in this House so that we have rather more non-smoking activities here. It certainly seems a good idea.

I am neutral in my response to the amendment. As a recent convert, now a non-smoker, I see the force of my noble friend's arguments. I do not have much sympathy for the drivers of black cabs. They can shut the glass window between themselves and the passenger and smoke in the front of the cab, which they frequently do.

In principle, we can give some support to the amendment. The only point that slightly concerns me relates to the statement in subsection (3) of the first proposed new clause that a passenger who refuses to comply,

"may be removed by the driver or, on the request of the driver, by a constable".

The second part is fine, but I am not certain that removal by the driver will necessarily be easy to achieve. It could give rise to more trouble than is envisaged. That is particularly the case in regard to the second amendment relating to private hire vehicles. I wonder what would happen if someone got into a cab late at night after being at the pub and lit a cigarette and the driver tried to eject him. I leave that for the Minister to comment on.

This was an area of high policy that was subject to an enormous amount of discussion in another place. More broadly, as the noble Baroness said, my honourable friends in another place indicated that, in principle, we were quite strongly in favour of such a proposal. But there are serious problems in regard to how it is done and what the consequences might be. It is therefore the Government's view is that we need the widest possible consultation before we can consider bringing forward legislation; and that legislation should be on a national basis rather than specifically a London basis.

That commitment to consult on a national provision still stands. A consultation document is being prepared. Our aim is to issue that document during this summer. It should set out all the issues and options, their merits and problems, and will give all concerned a chance to have their say.

As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, hinted, there are some serious difficulties. There is the problem of evidence. There might be substantial trouble with the driver or police constable ejecting people from the cab. By the time the police arrived, if passengers were quick enough on their toes, they would presumably have thrown away the cigarette, and there are unlikely to be other witnesses. Would the police or the Crown Prosecution Service take up those new tasks?

Safety issues are also involved. In the kind of situation referred to by the noble Lord, the passenger might be a young woman, possibly slightly drunk late at night. If she insists on smoking, what does the taxi driver do? Does he have a legal right to throw her out anywhere? There are serious complications as regards the enforcement of such a provision: for example, how soon the taxi driver has the right to throw someone out and how the police become involved. All those are difficult issues.

At present, a taxi driver can request someone not to smoke in the back of the cab; 99 per cent of the time that occurs and there are relatively few problems. With this provision, I can see the possibility of some quite nasty problems. They may be resolvable. If there is overwhelming public support for the proposal, clearly it will be the Government's intention to legislate in the light of that consultation. However, the consultation should take place first. The views of the enforcement authorities as well as taxi drivers and consumer interests should be taken into account. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise the weight of that argument.

The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is making is that this is the legislative opportunity. If we miss the cue, there is not likely to be another chance for several years.

If everyone were agreed that this was the way to go, and if the difficulties that I have spelt out and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, hinted at could be overcome, there would be a strong argument for legislating for London now—although, strictly speaking, there is no reason why this provision should apply only in London. Given that there are uncertainties and difficulties with the implementation of such a scheme, I do not believe that we are on firm enough ground to legislate at this stage.

I thank those who have supported the amendment. They brought forward very good points and I wish to reply. My noble friend said that those in a black cab can close the glass screen; they are not too worried about the driver. That is true, but there are between 40,000 and 80,000 minicabs in London which do not have the glass screens. I hope that the day never comes when we have to have them, as in New York, for the safety of the driver. That protection would be of no benefit for the driver of a private hire car vehicle, unless it were a luxurious limousine.

I understand the point on subsection (3). Perhaps it is too onerous and there is some other way of doing it. I believe that if taxi drivers had the right to say, "Mine is a non-smoking cab", the majority of people would abide by it and consider it law. The cases that arose would not be so many as to cause the degree of difficulty that the Minister suggested. The taxi trade is distressed that, having been told that it had a commitment from the Minister in the other place, Glenda Jackson, to an immediate consultation exercise, it has heard nothing since. I am pleased to hear the Minister mention today that consultation papers are being prepared, but the summer is too late for London. We are dealing with this matter now. Therefore I shall come back to it. We now have a legislative opportunity. Lord Winchilsea was mentioned: when I took a minicab Bill through this House he strongly opposed it at Third Reading. It was about 10 years before we got the minicab legislation, and the last time, when it became law, he was strongly supportive and everyone had come around to thinking how necessary it was.

I would hate to think that we might wait years before this provision was passed. If the proposal introduced a prohibitive ban, I could understand the objection. But not all taxis would be obliged to be non-smoking, so the case is quite different and we should come back to the matter. Between now and Report stage, I hope to persuade the Minister that he could find a way round the problem and bring forward a permissive amendment which would allow the provision to be brought in for London easily without new primary legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 296ZA:

Page 109, line 30, at end insert ("outside the City of London").

My noble friends on the Front Bench, supported by many behind, have been carrying on this debate during the Committee stage and have earned my undying admiration. I thought it right to leave them to it; they have done it extremely well.

However, at Second Reading I mentioned the concerns of the City of London about the Bill's effect, in Clause 206 in particular, on the powers which the City has hitherto had and under which the authorities introduced the ring of steel. The Committee will remember that following the bomb outrages in the City, particularly following the second Bishopsgate bomb, profound concern was expressed, not least by the representatives of some of the overseas banks and financial institutions in London, that unless the authorities took pretty drastic action to protect them from the outrages they would have to reconsider carefully where they maintained their European base. I do not need to labour the point about the City. As a financial centre, in many aspects of the financial world the City is pre-eminent.

That threat was real and, accordingly, using its traffic powers contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the City Corporation introduced as an extreme emergency the ring of steel. It was so christened, notwithstanding that all the physical features that created it were made of red and white plastic. But the ring was manned and then enforced strictly. Every vehicle that could not account for itself was stopped and investigated. Nowadays, the ring is not manned; instead there is a sophisticated system using television and other electronic devices which have enabled security to be maintained.

The powers that the City authorities use are not specific to the City, but the fact is that the City retains its own dedicated police force and has its own local authority provided through the City Corporation by the Common Council. Those facts have undoubtedly facilitated the introduction of what became known as the "ring of steel". However, under this Bill without the amendment, once the GLA is established, Transport for London will become the highway authority for GLA routes. They will include the arterial routes passing through the City which my noble friend Lord Attlee mentioned. Those have always been excluded from administration by other authorities. The Bill would mean that the City Corporation would no longer he able to proceed with any traffic management scheme unless Transport for London were agreeable. The initial introduction of the ring of steel was quite controversial for the reason that it was felt to be giving in to the threat of terrorism. However, within almost days it was recognised that it was an extremely valuable feature, widely appreciated. Within a few weeks, it was recognised that the environmental impact of steering large quantities of traffic away from the City of London was appreciable. Therefore, there is no doubt that it is a good thing.

The question must now be asked whether that would be able to continue under the Bill. An organisation like TfL, with its close links with the mayor of London, with the assembly may well find it much more difficult to introduce a controversial measure of this nature at short notice, whereas the City Corporation was able to do so. It earned great praise for its initiative.

The City is untypical. It is primarily a place for doing business rather than living in and it has its own arrangements for local authority and police services. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is highly desirable that the Bill should be amended. The amendment is a probing one and if arrangements could be made under the Bill, that kind of operation could remain within the sole control of the City of London.

There are other aspects, which no doubt will feature in future debates on amendments, about the extent of GLA roads. How far down side roads will TfL's powers extend? It has been suggested that those powers may extend as far as 100 yards, or even 200 yards, down side roads as a necessary concomitant of designating roads which are the responsibility of the GLA. It means that in the City of London pretty well every road would become the responsibility of the GLA and TfL, and the City Corporation would have almost no jurisdiction. Anyone who walks, drives or bicycles round the City of London recognises it as a mesh of roads, courtyards, lanes, places and so on. If the powers extended 100 yards or 200 yards down each side road the traffic powers of the City Corporation would be rendered totally nugatory.

Therefore, for those reasons I believe that there is a strong case for excluding the City from these powers. There has never been a strategic authority with power over the City's roads, and there are some fairly powerful arguments as to why this Bill should not now introduce one. Having said that, I have no doubt that the City Corporation and the traffic committees that deal with these matters will want to consult very widely with the GLA and TfL before any of these powers are exercised. But in the last resort I believe that the City should retain these powers, and this amendment allows it to do so. Under the Bill it cannot do so. I have every wish to support the amendment as strongly as I can.

I support the intentions behind the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has explained fully the importance of this matter to the City and all Londoners. Whether or not this amendment is the right way to deal with it I do not know. I await with interest what the Minister says. That it is a very important issue I have no doubt. I hope, therefore, that if the Government are not about to accept the amendment they will at least address the concerns that have been raised so well by the mover of the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in supporting it.

I support this amendment. However, while my noble friend Lord Jenkin has put the City's case very well I do not believe that the amendment goes far enough. I believe that the whole of the London road system will be completely confused. Under Clause 206 Transport for London will be the highway authority for all GLA roads, and under Clause 208 London borough councils will be responsible for all other roads. There is, thus, a dual responsibility and road users will not necessarily know who is the highway authority for a particular London road.

As a highway authority Transport for London will be responsible for issues such as maintenance, street lighting, signing and so on. That may cause problems. When road repairs must be reported and carried out the public will be confused. Westminster City Council understands why Transport for London should as part of its strategic functions be the traffic authority, but not the highway authority, which deals with local issues.

The proposals to extend the boundaries of GLA roads down borough side roads which connect to GLA roads will cause the public further confusion and lead to inefficient and bureaucratic operation of highway responsibilities. This is an important issue, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that he will be looking at this matter.

I am afraid that I cannot accept the intent of this amendment, which in part misunderstands the situation. The central issue here is that the GLA road network will be the strategic network for the whole of London. Following a lengthy period of consultation with the London boroughs and the City Corporation, we have announced the routes that will form part of the network. To exclude the City of London from that network does not make sense in terms of transport strategy. TfL should have direct control of this key network of roads.

However, some of the observations of noble Lords imply that we are handing over virtually all of the streets of the City to TfL. That is not so. The routes that have been designated as the GLA road network are: the existing red route from Bishopsgate to London Bridge, together with the Tower Hill gyratory and Tower Bridge; the route along the north bank of the Thames; and the A201 northern route which crosses Blackfriars Bridge. Only one of those, the red route, crosses the ring of steel; the others, while in the City boundaries, are outside the ring of steel. There is, therefore, only one route which is already a red route that crosses the ring of steel. Given that it was already a red route and the direct responsibility of the Traffic Director, the situation has not dramatically changed.

When the City introduced the ring of steel and the two crossing points it had to do so in conjunction with the Traffic Director. If there were any recurrence of the unfortunate situation that gave rise to the ring of steel the same would apply to TfL; in other words, there is no change in the balance of responsibilities between the City and the other authorities. All the designated roads were either red routes or other routes where the Traffic Director had a role. The City never had absolute control over the roads now designated.

As to the issue of side roads to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made reference, there are some short stretches that need to be taken into the GLA network to ensure that the main roads are operated safely and efficiently. In the wider context referred to by the noble Baroness, we are aware of the concerns of the City about the practicality of that proposal. We shall consult upon and consider further the best way to address that during the summer. But that is not a particular problem for the City. Certainly, there is no implication that the power will extend down side roads any further than anywhere else. It would probably be less far in the City given the network of roads to which the noble Lord referred.

As to the ring of steel, we are not changing the position; nor do we wish to do so. The proposal would affect only one road and two crossings, which are already the responsibility of the Traffic Director for London, to be taken over by the GLA.

I understand the Minister's observation on the ring of steel, but he must recognise that the designation of the red route came after the ring of steel was instituted. Therefore, one must ask whether the Traffic Director would have been prepared to agree that given the controversy at the time. It is no secret that it was very unpopular with Ministers in the previous government for the reasons I explained: it appeared to be giving in to the IRA. Would be have done that? The City Corporation, in recognition of the security aspects, was able to do it on its own initiative. While I accept the Minister's point about the two crossings, they came after the system was established.

The more important point, which I believe will give rise to difficulty unless we have a clearer view, is how far down side roads TfL's authority will extend. If one is talking of 10 or 20 yards—equivalent to the frontage of two or three houses—perhaps it is justifiable. However, it has been suggested to me that the powers might extend as far as 200 yards down roads leading off GLA roads, in which case in the City the powers would extend to virtually the whole highways network. Before we leave this amendment I believe that the noble Lord must give a clearer indication of what the Government have in mind in this regard. The problem of the side roads impinging massively on the boroughs' positions as highway authorities in their areas was raised by my noble friend Lord Bowness on Second Reading, but in the City there would be nothing left. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten the Committee on that point.

I also wonder whether the Minister would consider placing TfL under an obligation to offer contracts for highway maintenance. In the past, it has been common for the Department of Transport to contract out the maintenance of local roads to the local authorities. Does the Minister agree that TfL should be placed under an obligation to offer a contract of highway maintenance functions to the relevant local authority, with appropriate funding of course, so that a seamless service could be provided to local road users? Would that be an answer? Will the Minister think about that before we get to the next stage of the Bill?

I am not at all sure that I can bring any further enlightenment to this issue. Clearly the contracting arrangements will be a matter for TfL when established, and it is not immediately obvious that the best value would be achieved on strategic routes by extending a contract that related to local authority roads.

The objective of extending the function a small way down some of the side streets would be to ensure that the junctions were safe and appropriate to the traffic coming on to the GLA strategic road. In some cases, that would be more than 10 yards, but in most cases it would not be significantly more than 10 yards. I suspect that there are not many places in the City in which it would be significantly more.

Without analysing the precise design of every junction on every GLA road, I am not sure that I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, an authoritative assurance that the provision would not affect the City as dramatically as he suggests. However, it is the intention only to take that part of the road that would affect the junctions and the flow of traffic on to and from GLA strategic roads. I do not know whether that is any guidance to the noble Viscount, but I hope that he would recognise that that is as far as I can go tonight. We will consider the issue farther over the summer.

Perhaps I could ask the Minister to recognise, when he considers the issue further over the summer, that he has just articulated the problem. One cannot address it without a detailed analysis of every road junction. The fear is that what will happen is that a blanket, overall policy will be applied that will affect every junction whether it is relevant or not. That is one of the problems that will lead to untold delay in the two-tier highway system that the Bill will establish.

The problem goes further than the City of London. When we come to later clauses, the whole question of highway authorities for non-GLA roads taking decisions that, in the words of the Bill, "may affect" GLA roads will have to be considered carefully. We will have to be much more specific than we have been so far this afternoon on the question of the City's roads.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the amendment: it was more successful than I thought it would be and we have widened the debate. I had intended to keep the ring of steel argument for the next group. I do not know whether I am right to do that, and perhaps I should have paid more attention to the management of the groupings. In view of that, I might drop Amendment No. 296AA because we have covered it in such detail.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin talked about the extension of GLA roads. I also intended to speak to Amendments Nos. 296CB and 296AC. which would cover that point.

My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked who was the highways authority, and that is a very good question. I have an interest to declare, because I am president of the Heavy Transport Association. One of the association's problems is that it has to notify the highways authorities when it wants to move something and it is often difficult to find out who the highways authority is. That can apply especially if the load will cross a design, build, finance and operate motorway and it is not known whether the bridge belongs to the DBFO operator or to the local county council.

The Minister said that only one GLA road crosses the ring of steel. However, GLA roads can be designated in the future, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned red routes, so the problem could expand in the future.

I am grateful to hear that the Minister will reconsider the issue over the summer. I accept that the amendment as drafted might not be perfect and I am sure that we shall return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 296AC:

I am very glad that the noble Lord moved this amendment, because it is worthy of a slightly wider debate than we had just now, with particular reference to the City of London and the possible problems. All of us hope and believe that the mayor and the London boroughs will work co-operatively together, and we are all realistic enough to know that there are some policy areas that are likely to be more sensitive than others. Planning is an obvious example. However, as far as all London boroughs are concerned, this issue is probably the most sensitive of them all.

As I understand it, as the Bill is currently drafted, the mayor will have responsibility for what are known as side road returns. They may extend as little as 10 metres down a side road to as much as 100 metres, perhaps more. Whichever they are, I believe—with some experience—that they are likely to be the greatest and most common cause of conflict between London boroughs and the mayor, and the greatest cause of confusion among the public.

In his previous reply, I understood the Minister to say that the Government have recognised that it is a controversial issue. I am not surprised to hear that. I speak as vice chair of the Association of London Government. For some months we have sought to convince Ministers that it is an area of considerable concern, although it received no attention in another place. If the Minister is to consider this further over the summer, and continues with the useful discussions held to date, I am sure that that will be extremely useful.

First, we need clarity not only for the highway authorities, but for the public. If the mayor has responsibility for a side road return, the mayor also has responsibility for all the related matters—broken lamp-posts, broken paving stones, possibly planning applications, and so on. It gets very difficult. I have not understood why London, uniquely I think, has side road returns whereas I understand that elsewhere in the country the boundary in such matters rests at the edge of the carriageway of the strategic road, as is suggested in the amendment. That seems so sensible and obvious that, despite discussions with the Minister, I have not understood why it is taking so many months to get even as far as an assurance from the Minister that he will consider the issue. Perhaps I may urge him to do so, and favourably, in the interests of public clarity and considerably less bureaucracy and administrative inefficiency.

I support most strongly the intention of the amendment and urge the Minister to give it most favourable consideration over the summer.

I support the amendment and the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I do not propose to repeat them. However, the clarity sought is vital in this issue. If there is a planning application, where one has a relatively average property abutting a road return, to which authority will a mundane planning application be referred for statutory highway purpose consultations? The fear is that it will not be referred to the London borough or the local planning authority alone but also to Transport for London as the highway authority.

These matters go much further than the apparent administrative convenience of ensuring that TfL can deal with the junctions to the side roads.

My noble friend Lord Bowness has made the speech that I would have made. I add only one point. If there were one single issue that caused the maximum ill will between the London boroughs and the GLC it was the overlapping planning powers that had grown up over the years between those two tiers of the authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, used the phrase "may even" extend to planning applications. The most serious aspect is the impact that the measure will have on planning applications on these road returns for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Bowness explained eloquently.

During their further consideration, I urge the Government to recognise that if they do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, this clause must be amended.

Over the past few weeks, I have received several documents from councils in which one sentiment is repeated again and again. If the Minister is to consider the matter over the summer, perhaps he will consider this one sentence: that a continuing lack of clarity makes us wonder what is actually going to happen. After the Minister has considered the issue over the summer, perhaps the local councils will then be able to say: "I know exactly what is going to happen and I understand".

We understand the concerns to which the noble Lord, Lord Archer, refers. We shall be considering the matter over the summer. I do not believe that some of the implications are as wide ranging as has been suggested. Nevertheless there are serious concerns. My colleague, Glenda Jackson, will discuss the matter with the ALG. A meeting to discuss this issue is arranged for, I think, 12th July. It is to be hoped that we can obtain greater clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Archer, requests.

We did not envisage this as the great problem suggested in this House and by some of the boroughs. We had some experience on the red route designation for side roads. It may be that that raised more complex issues. Nevertheless, we believe that the matter can be sorted out with the London boroughs. There is no blanket-imposed solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, suggested in an earlier intervention. We are looking again at the issue over the summer. We shall do so in conjunction with the London boroughs. I hope that at this stage the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.